When I first joined a multi-level marketing company, it felt like destiny. Freedom. Empowerment. Community. So much so that I tattooed “trust the process” on my body as a daily reminder. But the deeper I got, the more I noticed the cracks: emotional manipulation, magical thinking, and an almost religious silencing of doubts.
If you missed last week’s episode here is the deep dive of my own experience.
That’s why I’m thrilled to share this week’s podcast interview with Robert L. FitzPatrick. Robert has been sounding the alarm on MLMs for decades, long before it was common to describe them as cult-like. He’s the author of Ponzinomics: The Untold Story of Multi-Level Marketing, co-author of False Profits, and a respected expert cited by the BBC, The New York Times, and courts alike. For years, he’s been giving people the tools (language, data, and perspective) to recognize MLMs for what they truly are: predatory business models, not opportunities.
Here is the image of the “Airplane Game” we reference in the interview
In this episode, we cover:
The Spark: Robert’s first encounter with a scam-like business in the 1980s, which pushed him into decades of research on MLMs and fraud—mirroring the way my own personal MLM experience prompted deep self-examination.
Why “Not All MLMs” Is a Myth: The business model itself is designed to funnel money upward, making it impossible for the vast majority to succeed, regardless of the company or product.
Puritan Theology & Prosperity: How old ideas linking wealth to virtue evolved into the prosperity gospel, and how MLMs exploit that mindset.
Cultural Hooks: From hustle culture to self-improvement mantras and spiritual undertones, MLMs borrow heavily from mainstream culture to recruit and retain followers.
Narrative Control: How pre-scripted objections, emotional manipulation, and silencing tactics maintain loyalty and block critical thinking—something I’ve noticed both in MLMs and high-control religious groups.
The Hard Numbers: Realistic odds of success are brutal—most recruits lose money, almost all quit within a year, and mandatory purchases like “Healthy Mind and Body” programs or the Isabody Challenge trap participants financially and emotionally.
Legality & Political Protection: If MLMs are fundamentally unfair, how are they still legal? And what protects them politically?
Beyond the MLM Mindset: MLMs don’t just drain your wallet—they reshape identities, fracture communities, and erode trust in yourself and others.
This conversation is essential for anyone curious about MLMs, whether you’ve been drawn into one, have friends or family involved, or are simply interested in understanding how these systems work under the surface. Robert’s insights give us not just the numbers, but the language and tools to recognize the scam and the courage to break free from it.
Tune in for an eye-opening conversation that goes beyond the hype and digs into the real human cost of MLMs.
When Affirmation Fails: The Fight for Justice in Gender Medicine
For years, we’ve been told that gender affirmation is the only compassionate response. Questioning it? Unthinkable. But as the dust settles, more and more individuals are coming forward with stories of regret, medical complications, and the realization that they weren’t given the full picture before making life-altering decisions.
This week on Taste of Truth Tuesdays, I sat down with Martha, co-founder of Transition Justice, an organization dedicated to helping detransitioners and their families seek legal recourse. If you’re unfamiliar, Transition Justice is one of the few organizations providing legal resources for those who feel they were misled, rushed, or even coerced into medical transition without true informed consent.
The Legal Battle Over Gender Medicine
One of the biggest takeaways from my conversation with Martha was the growing number of legal cases related to gender medicine. Detransitioners—many of whom transitioned as minors—are now speaking out, claiming that the medical community failed them. They argue they were fast-tracked into hormone therapy and surgeries without adequate psychological evaluation or a real understanding of the long-term consequences.
Transition Justice connects these individuals with legal professionals who can help them navigate potential malpractice suits and other forms of legal action. The goal? Accountability. Because when medical institutions push an ideology over evidence-based care, lives are affected—permanently.
Social & Ideological Pressures: A Personal Reflection
As someone who lived in Portland for years, I watched firsthand as gender ideology swept through my social circles. I had friends who transitioned, friends who encouraged their kids to transition, and a culture that made any dissent feel like social suicide. Parents who hesitated were accused of being unsupportive, bigoted, even abusive. Many went along with it—not because they were convinced, but because they were afraid.
Now, years later, some of those same parents are questioning everything. Some of those kids, now young adults, regret what happened. But where do they turn when their bodies have changed irreversibly? When the very institutions that promised to help them are nowhere to be found?
The Ethics of Informed Consent
One of the key issues Martha and I discussed was the tension between bodily autonomy and medical ethics. Should adults have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit? Some states limit abortion at some extent. But what about minors? What about individuals who were never properly informed of the risks? What happens when a decision made at 13 results in permanent medical complications at 25?
Medical ethics demand that patients receive full, unbiased information about risks, benefits, and alternatives before undergoing treatment. But in many cases, detransitioners say they were only given one path: affirmation or nothing. The idea that therapy, alternative treatments, or even just more time to explore could be a viable option was dismissed as “conversion therapy.” That’s not informed consent—that’s coercion.
What Comes Next?
The tide is shifting. Countries like the UK, Sweden, and Finland have already started scaling back gender-affirming treatments for minors, citing a lack of evidence and serious concerns about long-term harm. The U.S., however, remains deeply divided. But as more detransitioners come forward and more lawsuits gain traction, it’s clear this conversation isn’t going away.
Martha believes we’re on the cusp of major legal and cultural shifts. Institutions that once claimed there were “no regrets” are being forced to reckon with reality. And for those who were harmed? Transition Justice is fighting to make sure they’re heard—and that those responsible are held accountable.
Final Thoughts
This is a conversation we need to have—without fear, without labels, and without ideological blinders. If we care about bodily autonomy, medical ethics, and the well-being of future generations, we can’t afford to look away.
Want to hear the full discussion? Listen to my interview with Martha on Taste of Truth Tuesdays! And if you or someone you know has been impacted by these issues, check out Transition Justice at
🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to edify & encourage others! To do so: leave a 5⭐️ review and send it to a friend! Thank you for listening! I’d love to hear from you, find me on Instagram! @taste0ftruth , @megan_mefit , Pinterest! Substack and on X!
I had a lot of different topics in mind for my final solo episode of Taste of Truth Tuesdays Season 3. For example, The Stress-Mitochondria Connection: How B vitamins, Taurine and Magnesium Fuel your Energy, A world without religion: Freedom or Fragmentation, How Emotional Trauma contributes to Chronic Pain or the Social Media Dilemma How to Break Free from the Digital Grip… But then, a new development landed right in my lap—one that perfectly encapsulates the concerning trends I’ve been observing in the deconstruction, ex-Christian, anti-MLM, and ex-cult communities.
My friend Brandie, who I had on in Season 2 for the episode From Serendipity to Scrutiny, recently blocked me. And why? Because I simply pushed back and asked questions. We’d had some private conversations in the DMs that had already raised red flags for me, but apparently, even the slightest bit of pushback was enough to get me cut off. This isn’t just about one friendship—it’s about a much bigger pattern I’ve seen unfolding.
The Deconstruction Pipeline: When Leaving a High-Control Group Means Entering Another
One of the biggest ironies in the ExChristian circles is how quickly people flee high-control religious environments only to land in equally dogmatic ideological spaces. This isn’t a coincidence—it’s human nature. As Jonathan Haidt lays out in The Righteous Mind, our reasoning evolved more for argumentation than truth-seeking. We are wired for confirmation bias, and when we leave one belief system, we often replace it with another that feels equally absolute but now appears “rational” or “liberating.”
This is where figures like Steven Hassan and Janja Lalich come in (because this isn’t just about Brandie) self-proclaimed experts on cults who, ironically, exhibit the same control tactics they claim to expose. Hassan, a former Moonie turned cult deprogrammer, has made a career out of helping people escape authoritarian religious systems. But a deeper look at his work reveals an ideological bent (it’s hard to ignore). He frequently frames conservative or traditional religious beliefs as inherently cult-like while giving progressive or leftist movements a pass. He has called Trumpism a cult but is conspicuously silent on the high-control tactics within certain progressive activist spaces. His criteria for what constitute undue influence seem to shift depending on the political context, (BITE model) making his framework less about critical thinking and more about reinforcing his preferred ideological narrative. I did what Hassan won’t: use his own model to break down the mind control tactics of the extreme left.
Janja Lalich follows a similar pattern. A (supposedly) former Marxist-Leninist, she applies her cult analysis primarily to religious and right-wing groups while glossing over the coercive elements in the far-left spaces she once occupied (or still does). Her work is valuable in breaking down how high-demand groups operate, but she, too, appears to have blind spots when it comes to ideological echo chambers outside of the religious sphere. These represent a pattern rather than an isolated incident. Other platforms like (The New Evangelicals,Dr. Pete Enns (The Bible for Normal People), Eve was framed,Jesus Unfollower, Dr. Laura Anderson just to name a few.) highlight control tactics when they appear in traditional or conservative groups but fail to apply the same scrutiny to their own ideological circles.
This selective analysis creates a dangerous illusion: it allows people leaving fundamentalist religious spaces to believe they are now “free thinkers” while unknowingly adopting another rigid belief system. The deconstruction pipeline often leads former evangelicals straight into progressive activism, where purity tests, ideological loyalty, and social shaming operate just as effectively as they did in the church. The language changes: “sin” becomes “problematic,” “heresy” becomes “harmful rhetoric”, but the mechanisms remain the same.
Haidt’s work on moral foundations helps explain this phenomenon. Progressive and conservative worldviews are built on different moral intuitions, but both can be taken to extremes. The key to avoiding ideological capture is intellectual humility—the ability to recognize that no belief system has a monopoly on truth and that reason itself can be weaponized for tribalism.
John Stuart Mill warned of this centuries ago: the greatest threat to truth is not outright censorship but the cultural and social pressures that make certain ideas unspeakable. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind echoes this concern, showing how overprotective thinking and emotional reasoning have created a generation that confuses disagreement with harm.
Franklin O’Kanu’s concept of the “fake intellectual” is particularly relevant here—people who claim to be champions of free thought while aggressively enforcing ideological orthodoxy.
In this episode, through my experience with Brandie, I’ll illustrate how skepticism is selectively applied, and how ‘critical thinking’ communities can become just as dogmatic as the systems they reject. And unlike Hassan or Lalich, my connection with Brandie was personal. And that’s why I felt this warranted an entire podcast episode. Because what happened with her is a microcosm of a larger issue: people leaving high-control spaces only to re-enter new ones. They are convinced that this time, they’ve finally found the “truth.” Spoiler alert: that’s not how truth works.
So, let’s talk about it.
Blocked for Asking Questions
Recently, Brandie posted on Instagram about DARVO—a psychological tactic where abusers Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender to avoid accountability. I agree that MLMs use DARVO. But I wanted to add friendly pushback, that I’ve noticed anti-MLM advocates use similar tactics to silence critics—especially when it comes to questioning the food industry— but she had turned the comments off.
DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender—a tactic frequently used by abusers, cult leaders, and high-control groups when they’re called out. It flips accountability on its head, making the person asking legitimate questions seem like the aggressor while the actual manipulator plays the victim.
How MLMs Use DARVO
Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) schemes thrive on DARVO because their entire business model is built on deception. Here’s a classic example:
Deny – A distributor is confronted with the fact that 99% of people in MLMs lose money. Instead of addressing the data, they deny it completely: “That’s just a myth! I know tons of people making six figures!”
Attack – When pressed further, they go on the offensive, accusing the skeptic of being negative or jealous: “Wow, you’re so close-minded. No wonder you’re not successful!”
Reverse Victim and Offender – Finally, they paint themselves as the victim and the questioner as the bully: “I’m just a woman trying to build a business and empower others. Why are you trying to tear me down?”
This tactic shuts down meaningful discussion and keeps people trapped in a system that exploits them.
Do you know what else exploits individuals? Fear and propaganda.
I saw this firsthand in a recent conversation with a friend who’s deeply entrenched in leftist ideologies and what I’d call “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” She shared a post warning people to change their bank accounts because of a false claim that Elon Musk’s staff had access to personal financial data. I pointed out that the post was misinformation, but instead of engaging with the facts, the conversation quickly shifted in a way that mirrors the DARVO tactic.
First, she denied that the post could be harmful or misleading. Then, she attacked me for not understanding the larger “fear” that people are feeling in the current political climate. Finally, she reversed the roles, casting herself as the victim of a chaotic world and me as the one creating unnecessary tension by questioning the post.
This is a textbook example of DARVO, a tactic that deflects accountability, shifts blame, and keeps people trapped in fear-driven narratives. It keeps them from having honest, fact-based conversations and prevents any real understanding of what’s going on around them.
How Brandie Used DARVO on Me
Ironically, despite being an anti-MLM advocate, Brandie used the exact same manipulation tactics when I pushed back on some of her positions. This is a woman who criticizes manipulative marketing tactics in MLMs, yet here she was, employing the very same tactics in our discussion. It’s a stark example of how these patterns can be so ingrained that even those who oppose them can fall into using them.
Deny – When I questioned her promotion of dietitians who endorse processed foods like Clif Z Bars (which recently faced a class-action lawsuit for misleading health claims), she refused to acknowledge the legitimate concerns. Instead, she dismissed it by claiming that caring about food ingredients was more stressful for the body than just eating the food itself—a false dichotomy that undermines any nuance in the conversation, especially when she often critiques the same logical fallacy in other contexts.
Attack – Rather than engaging with my points, she made it personal, implying that I was being antagonistic or bad-faith for even questioning her stance.
Reverse Victim and Offender – Finally, when I didn’t back down, she blocked me, flipping the narrative to make it seem like I was the one causing harm simply by asking questions.
When Therapy Becomes Thought Control: The Weaponization of Mental Health
What makes this dynamic even more interesting is that both my friend in Portland and Brandie, an anti-MLM advocate, are therapists. These conversations have all unfolded within a culture that professes to value feelings, emotional well-being, and mental health awareness. More people are going to therapy than ever before, and an increasing number of people are training to become therapists—mostly women. Currently, around 70-80% of psychologists and therapists are female, and those seeking help are also more likely to be female.
The field has increasingly become a vehicle for ideological activism. Dr. Roger McFillin has spoken extensively about this shift, describing how therapy now often reinforces victimhood narratives rather than fostering resilience. Instead of helping clients process experiences and build coping skills, many therapists nudge them toward predetermined ideological conclusions—especially in areas of identity, oppression, and systemic injustice.
This shift has eroded one of psychology’s most fundamental ethical principles: informed consent. Clients, particularly young and vulnerable individuals, are often funneled into ideological frameworks without realizing it. Under the guise of “affirming care” or “social justice-informed therapy,” therapists may subtly guide them toward specific worldviews rather than offering a full range of perspectives. What should be a process of self-discovery instead becomes thought reform, where questioning the prevailing narrative is framed as harmful or regressive.
Therapy is no longer just political—it has become a mechanism of enforcement. We see this in counseling programs that demand ideological conformity from students, in therapists who blur the line between clinical work and activism, and in public figures like Janja Lalich and Steven Hassan, who claim to expose undue influence while engaging in the same tactics. This is ideological gatekeeping disguised as expertise.
Rather than fostering open exploration, the field is increasingly defined by rigid dogma. Questioning the dominant ideology isn’t framed as critical thinking—it’s labeled as resistance, ignorance, or even harm. And when that happens, dissenting voices aren’t debated; they’re erased. If this trend continues, therapy won’t just be a tool for self-improvement. It will be a tool for social control. It already is.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Skepticism
Brandie and the anti-MLM crowd claim to combat misinformation, yet they overlook a significant issue: the influence of Big Food and Big Pharma on public health narratives.
On her social media story and in private conversations, Brandie has defended dietitians who actively promote ultra-processed foods. Some registered dietitians with large platforms endorse products like Hawaiian Punch and Clif Z Bars as acceptable—even healthy—options.
Clif Z Bars, for example, were recently involved in a $12 million class action settlement for falsely marketing their products as “healthy and nutritious.” These bars are 37% added sugar, essentially sugar bombs.
Yet, a dietitian Brandie supports feeds these bars to her young children, publicly calling them a “healthy snack.” Why is this not considered misinformation?
These conflicts of interest raise serious concerns about industry influence over public health recommendations. Yet, if you question this, you’re labeled anti-science.
This kind of blind faith in authority is no different from religious dogma. The pursuit of truth should always leave room for debate. This also highlights why blindly trusting “credentialed experts” is insufficient. Degrees and titles don’t guarantee that recommendations are free from corporate influence.
Rather than acknowledge these conflicts, Brandie and her followers discredit those asking valid questions, often accusing them of using the “Just Asking Questions” fallacy.
The “Just Asking Questions” Fallacy
A common tactic used to dismiss skepticism is labeling it as the “Just Asking Questions” (JAQ) fallacy. This fallacy occurs when people imply that merely questioning an issue is a form of misinformation or bad faith argumentation.
Many dietitians and anti-MLM advocates are deeply entrenched in mainstream narratives on topics like vaccine safety, climate change, and pharmaceutical efficacy. When skeptics ask pointed questions about these subjects, they are often accused of using JAQing off—a term that suggests they are sowing doubt without providing counter-evidence. The accusation assumes that asking difficult questions is inherently conspiratorial, rather than a legitimate means of inquiry.
But skepticism is not the same as denialism. Critical thinking demands that we interrogate all claims—especially those made by institutions with financial or ideological incentives. Dismissing questions outright only serves to protect entrenched power structures.
The Counterpoint: Intellectual Humility and the Dogma of Data
While it’s vital to engage critically with the information we’re presented, it’s equally crucial to consider the potential pitfalls of blind adherence to any ideology—whether it’s religious, political, or scientific. In the modern age, science and data have often become the new forms of dogma. The scientific community, which prides itself on skepticism and inquiry, is sometimes treated as an unassailable authority—leaving no room for dissent or alternative perspectives.
The worship of science and data as infallible can feel eerily similar to religious dogma. It demands conformity in the name of progress, dismisses alternative viewpoints, and often shuts down debate—all while asserting that it’s in the name of critical thinking and rationality. In this system, the pursuit of truth can ironically become an exercise in tribalism and intellectual rigidity.
What is critical to recognize is that science and reason themselves are not immune to bias, corruption, or influence. Take, for example, the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, which compromises the integrity of public health policies. This conflict of interest is a significant factor in the mistrust surrounding many mainstream health recommendations, especially when we see how corporate interests shape the outcomes of clinical trials, the approval of drugs, or public health initiatives.
Take the nutrition field, for example. The dietitian mentioned earlier endorses Clif Z Bars for her young children, but if you challenge this, you’re accused of being anti-science or fear-mongering.
Similarly, when figures like RFK Jr. highlight pharmaceutical industry ties to regulatory agencies, critics don’t engage with the data. Instead, they attempt to discredit the person asking the questions.
The Real Issue is Deception from Trusted Intuitions
The real misinformation often stems from corporate-backed institutions. Public trust in physicians and hospitals fell from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% in January 2024—not due to misinformation, but because people witnessed firsthand the contradictions, shifting narratives, and financial incentives behind public health decisions. Trust is eroded by deception, not by questioning.
RFK Jr. isn’t “sowing doubt” for the sake of it. He’s pointing out documented cases where pharmaceutical companies have manipulated clinical trials, buried adverse data, and exercised significant influence over regulatory bodies. His book The Real Anthony Fauci outlines a heavily researched case against the unchecked power of Big Pharma and its ties to government agencies. If his claims were false, he would face lawsuits, yet his work continues to spark vital discussions.
True skepticism means demanding better science, not blindly trusting authority. The real danger lies in silencing those who ask critical questions.
Big Food and the Shaming of Health Advocates
A recent study has revealed something I find all too familiar: intimidation tactics used by industries like Big Tobacco, ultra-processed food companies, and alcohol sectors to bully and silence researchers, whistleblowers, and anyone challenging their agenda. This tactic—used by Big Food to discredit critics—reminds me of the way people are shamed or bullied for questioning processed foods or advocating for healthier diets. If you’ve ever pointed out the risks of sugary snacks or fast food, you’ve probably been labeled an extremist, a health-obsessed “wellness warrior,” or worse, a “purity culture” advocate. I can’t help but feel this is just another form of gaslighting, where we’re told that it’s worse to worry about the ingredients in our food than it is to consume those ingredients, even if they are known to contribute to chronic health conditions.
Ironically, this kind of manipulation is the same strategy Big Tobacco used for decades to muddy the waters around the health risks of smoking. And now, ultra-processed food companies are doing the same thing—distracting us from the very real, documented consequences of a poor diet.
Why We Need to Trust Ourselves, Not JUST the Experts
What frustrates me is how the anti-MLM community often jumps on wellness advocates who want to clean up their diets for health reasons. While I agree that MLMs are a breeding ground for manipulation, this should not mean we ignore the very real need to question the food industry’s stranglehold on our diets and health. It’s vital to recognize that not all experts have your best interests at heart. Many of the mainstream recommendations we’re told to follow come from organizations or industries with questionable motives—whether it’s Big Pharma, Big Food, or Big Tobacco. These same industries have a long history of misleading the public, and many of their experts are bought and paid for by corporate interests.
Wanting to improve your diet to manage or reverse chronic health conditions shouldn’t be dismissed as obsessive or extreme. It’s a rational, self-preserving choice that empowers you to take control of your health, even when the mainstream narrative tells you otherwise.
Is This Healing or Just Another High-Control Belief System?
Brandie often talks about “cult recovery” and the importance of psychological resilience. But is she really modeling resilience? Because true resilience isn’t about avoiding discomfort—it’s about engaging with it, questioning your own biases, and standing firm in discussions, even when they challenge your worldview.
Instead, she’s teaching people to coddle their minds. To create ideological echo chambers where questioning the “right” experts is heresy. To avoid any perspective that might cause discomfort. If she’s teaching people to avoid discomfort rather than work through it, I’m not sure how that aligns with the principles of ethical psychotherapy.
True healing requires grappling with discomfort, not running from it. When you teach people to shut down their discomfort rather than confront it, you’re not promoting growth—you’re just pushing them into another high-control belief system.
That’s not healing. That’s just another form of control.
And let’s be real—if your response to fair, thoughtful criticism is to shut down the conversation and block people who used to support you, you haven’t actually deconstructed anything. You’ve just built a new echo chamber with different branding.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just about Brandie. It’s about a larger pattern I see in the deconstruction and anti-MLM communities. Many of them claim to be freeing minds, but in reality, they’re just recruiting people into a different kind of ideological purity test.
The message is clear: You’re allowed to be skeptical, but only in the “approved” ways.
That’s not intellectual freedom. That’s just another cult.
Where Do We Go From Here?
We need real conversations about manipulation and misinformation—whether it comes from MLMs, Big Food, Big Pharma, or influencer dietitians who profit from pushing corporate-backed narratives. It means we need to question everything—without replacing one unquestionable authority with another. And we need to be willing to hold all forms of power accountable, not just the ones that fit neatly into our existing beliefs.
Because if we’re not careful, we’ll escape one high-control group only to fall right into another.
Welcome back to Taste of Truth Tuesdays. Today, we’re diving into a topic I’ve wanted to explore for a while now. Earlier this month, I came across a writer on Substack who posted something that really struck me. In his piece, he used dehumanizing language ‘assigned female at birth’. While his intention may have been to be inclusive, I found it to be exclusive and downright misogynistic.
It reminded me of back in 2021, I had a few people reach out to me on Instagram, pointing out that we had shifted from using the term ‘women’ to ‘AFAB’—’assigned female at birth.’ My gut reaction was intense—what the hell is going on here? It also reminds me of when I was living in Portland, I was constantly stressed, seeking external validation, and lacked the courage to speak up against gender ideology around 2013-2015. Little did I know, it would eventually take over the world.
Now, we’re going to dive into the consequences of transgenderism and its impact on children. And here’s the thing: I’m no longer afraid of being canceled or ridiculed. Honestly, I’ve already lost all my friends. But at this point, I’ve come to appreciate who I am, and standing for truth in today’s world has never been more important. It’s worth every consequence.
How We Got Here—The Origins of Gender Ideology
To understand how we went from recognizing biological sex as reality to debating whether we can even say the word “women” in medical journals, we have to look at where gender ideology came from.
This whole mess started with psychologist John Money in the 1950s. He was one of the first people to separate “gender” from “sex,” arguing that gender was a social construct, independent of biology. Expanding on John Money’s experiments is crucial because they expose the disturbing origins of gender ideology. Money, a psychologist and sexologist, was instrumental in pushing the idea that gender identity is entirely socially constructed, separate from biological sex. However, his most infamous experiment—the case of David Reimer—reveals the dark and unethical foundation of this belief system.
David Reimer was born male, alongside his identical twin brother, Brian. After a botched circumcision, Money convinced his parents to raise David as a girl, “Brenda,” after undergoing surgery and hormone treatments. Money believed this would prove that gender identity was purely a matter of socialization. However, David never truly identified as female. He struggled with severe psychological distress, eventually rejecting the imposed identity in his teenage years and transitioning back to male. His twin brother Brian also suffered severe emotional distress, and both tragically died by suicide in their 30s—a devastating consequence of Money’s reckless experiment.
The nature vs. nurture debate is at the heart of this issue. Money’s work attempted to prove that nurture—socialization and upbringing—could completely override biological sex. Yet, the failure of the Reimer case demonstrated the opposite: biology plays an undeniable role in identity and development. Attempts to force individuals into gender identities that contradict their biology often lead to severe psychological distress.
While John Money championed the idea that gender was purely a social construct, his ideological opponent, Dr. Milton Diamond, spent decades proving otherwise. Diamond, a biologist and sexologist, conducted extensive research showing that biological sex has an innate influence on identity. He exposed the flaws in Money’s work, particularly the David Reimer case, and argued that forcing an identity contrary to one’s biology leads to immense suffering. Diamond’s work underscored the importance of acknowledging biological sex while still allowing for individual gender expression—a stance completely at odds with today’s gender ideology, which seeks to erase biological realities altogether.
Intersex conditions are often misused as a justification for erasing sex-based distinctions. While intersex individuals exist, they make up a small fraction of the population and do not negate the binary nature of human sexual reproduction. Most intersex conditions result in variations of male or female biology, not a third sex. Using intersex as a reason to eliminate sex-based language ultimately harms both intersex and non-intersex individuals by denying the reality of biological differences.
Beyond David Reimer’s case, Money’s broader work was filled with moral controversies. His therapy sessions with young children were highly controversial and ethically disturbing by today’s standards. He conducted what he called “sexual rehearsal therapy,” which involved encouraging children to engage in sexual activities with their parents or siblings as a form of treatment for various psychological issues.
These sessions were intended to help children overcome sexual anxieties or developmental disorders, but they often crossed serious ethical boundaries and caused significant harm to the children involved. The lack of informed consent, the inappropriate nature of the activities, and the potential for long-term psychological damage have led to widespread criticism of Money’s methods.
Despite this, Money’s ideas laid the foundation for modern gender ideology. His theories, though discredited by cases like David Reimer’s, were absorbed into academia and later expanded upon by activists. The result? A cultural shift where subjective identity is prioritized over biological reality, and dissent is often met with backlash.
Understanding the origins of gender ideology is crucial because it reveals the shaky foundation upon which these ideas were built. Science, ethics, and real-world consequences all point to the same conclusion: biology matters, and attempts to erase it come at a significant human cost.
His theories were later expanded by Judith Butler in the ‘90s, who pushed the idea that gender is performative and entirely detached from biology. This philosophy has now morphed into the idea that sex itself is a “social construct.”
The Trans Flag’s Creator: A Window into Gender Ideology’s Evolution
Monica Helms, born Robert Hogge, designed the trans🏳️⚧️ pride flag in 1999.
According to researcher Dr. Sarah Goode, CEO of StopSO (Specialist Treatment Organization for the Prevention of Sexual Offending), pedophiles who organize online have developed their own culture, language, and symbols. One common symbol used in pedophile forums incorporates the colors baby blue, pink and white. In her lecture, ‘Hidden Knowledge: What We Ought to Know About Pedophiles,’ Dr. Goode shows a slide of the image, and says, “The pink half represents ‘girl lovers’ and the blue half represents ‘boy lovers.’”
The color code system appears to predate the initial design of the transgender flag and can be traced back to at least as early as 1997, according to online pro-pedophile forums.
Areas in Europe that advertise child trafficking to pedophile sex tourists have used the color code: “blue curtains mean a boy child prostitute and pink curtains a girl.”
It is unclear whether Helms was aware of this correlation at the time, but when discussing the symbolism behind the trans flag in an interview in 2017, Helms stated that blue represented young boys and pink represented young girls.
Whatever the case may be, his personal history and writings reveal disturbing patterns that echo the unsettling dynamics of gender ideology we’ve seen in figures like Dr. John Money. Helms, who now identifies as a woman, has long been involved in controversial and fetishistic behaviors, even writing “forced feminization” and erotic short stories. His writings include disturbing themes, such as the sexualization of minors, notably in a short story where a man marries a young girl who ages slowly, reflecting a disturbing fantasy that came to him in a dream.
In his memoir, More Than Just a Flag, Helms describes his “bigender” identity, as an “enlightened” being who floats between multiple identities, switching from male to female, sometimes simultaneously, or in an instant. He recalls times of experimentation, especially as an adult, where he would wear clothing inappropriate for his age and faced consequences for doing so at work.
Adding a deeply unsettling layer to the conversation, Helms, who was 70 at the time in 2022, made headlines by claiming to have changed his age to 25. Given the logic behind these transformations, this age shift sparked a viral conversation, with some commenters pointing out that his partner, Darlene Darlington Wagner, would now be “just 16 years old.” This raises questions about how fluid identity could extend beyond gender and into age.
As gender ideology increasingly became intertwined with political movements, it found its way into the mainstream, especially within the Democratic Party. Initially, intellectual discussions around gender began with French philosophers whose ideas about the body, power, and identity influenced later iterations of gender theory. But these complex theories have since been stripped of their nuance and rebranded into a political dogma that now dominates much of the left-leaning discourse.
The Democratic Party, which once championed civil rights and social justice, now finds itself navigating a fine line between advocating for freedom and accommodating forces that seek to change the very definition of identity itself. But at what cost? The more corporate interests and industries gain traction in shaping these ideologies, the more the left’s original values of anti-corporate resistance become a distant memory.
Which brings us to today’s nightmare.
From Fringe Theory to Political Dogma—How Gender Ideology Took Over the Democratic Party
How did academic theorizing become an institutionalized belief system within mainstream politics, particularly in the Democratic Party? This transformation happened through several key developments:
The Rise of Queer Theory in Academia – Universities became breeding grounds for gender ideology throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Gender studies departments, influenced by postmodernist philosophy, framed gender as entirely fluid, rejecting biological sex distinctions. As students trained in these theories graduated and took positions in media, education, and activism, they carried these ideas into broader society.
Institutional Capture and Activism – Activist organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began pushing gender ideology into corporate policies, legal frameworks, and public schools. Their influence, combined with the rapid spread of social media, helped mainstream these concepts far beyond the academic world.
Legal and Policy Shifts – Under the Obama administration, gender ideology gained political traction, particularly through Title IX reinterpretations that mandated schools to accommodate self-declared gender identities. This was further expanded under the Biden administration, with policies requiring federally funded institutions to adopt gender-affirming policies in sports, healthcare, and education. Let’s talk about the hilarious double standards around the billionaires funding the LGBT movement. We’ve all seen the left melting down over the influence of billionaires—except, of course, when those billionaires are funding agendas they support. An article from First Things calls out some of the big names behind the LGBT movement, and guess what? It’s showcases this massive contradiction.
Big Tech and Media Reinforcement – Social media platforms, major news outlets, and entertainment industries began actively promoting gender ideology while censoring dissenting views. This created a cultural environment where questioning gender ideology was framed as hateful or bigoted, further entrenching it within left-wing politics.
The Redefinition of Civil Rights – Transgender identity was increasingly framed as the next major civil rights frontier, equating sex-based protections with racial and disability rights. This shifted the Democratic Party’s platform to fully embrace gender ideology, making skepticism or critique politically unacceptable within mainstream liberal discourse.
The Shift from ‘Women’ to ‘AFAB’—Erasing Women for Ideology
So why has the term “women” been replaced with “AFAB” (Assigned Female At Birth)? The justification is that saying “women” is “exclusionary” to trans-identified females. But in reality, it’s deeply misogynistic.
Jennifer Bilek, in her Dispatches from the 11th Hour essays, has done incredible work exposing how gender ideology isn’t some organic civil rights movement—it’s a well-funded social engineering project backed by billionaires and biotech companies. She points out that this linguistic shift isn’t just about “inclusion.” It’s about destabilizing categories of sex for the benefit of corporate and medical industries.
When you erase the words “women” or “woman,” you erase women’s ability to advocate for their needs. You make it harder to talk about female-specific health issues. And you make it easier for policies to prioritize ideology over science.
The Medical and Scientific Consequences of Erasing Sex
This isn’t just an abstract cultural issue. It has real, dangerous consequences for medicine and science.
Historically, women have been excluded from medical research—for decades, studies were conducted almost exclusively on male subjects, and the results were assumed to apply to women. The problem? Women are not small men. We have different hormonal cycles, different metabolic rates, and different responses to medications.
Here are just a few examples of how ignoring biological sex in medicine harms women:
Heart disease: Women’s symptoms are different from men’s, and because most research was done on men, women are more likely to be misdiagnosed.
ACL injuries: Women are at a significantly higher risk due to differences in hip structure and ligament laxity, yet training protocols are still modeled on male athletes.
Medication dosages: Women metabolize drugs differently, but dosages are often tested on male bodies, leading to overdoses or ineffective treatments for women.
In 2016, the NIH finally mandated that women be included in medical research, a huge step forward. But now, under gender ideology, we’re reversing that progress by saying we can’t acknowledge sex at all.
If we replace “women’s health” with “AFAB health,” how do we effectively study and treat female-specific conditions like PCOS, endometriosis, or pregnancy-related complications?
We don’t. Because that’s the point.
The Connection Between Transgenderism and Transhumanism
As the journalist, Stella Morabito, has written:
“Transgenderism is a vehicle for state power and censorship.”
It is tyranny dressed up in the clothes of what has become the carcass of the progressive left and it seeks absolute power and control over humanity and nature.
This is where things get dark.
Jennifer Bilek and other researchers have pointed out how gender ideology is just one arm of a larger movement: transhumanism—the belief that humanity should merge with technology, that our bodies are “obsolete,” and that we should ultimately move beyond biology altogether.
Think about what the transgender movement pushes:
The idea that our bodies are wrong and need to be medically altered
A reliance on synthetic hormones for life
The normalization of body modification to fit identity over reality
Now zoom out: Who benefits from this ideology? Pharmaceutical companies. The same billionaires pushing trans activism are also deeply invested in AI, biotech, and synthetic biology.
Oligarchs on both the political right like Peter Thiel and on the left like Jeff Bezos. JD Vance is the co-founder of Narya Capital and invested in Amplied Bio which has announced a strategic partnership RNAV8 to support MRNA therapeutic developers. Even MAHA’s hero RFK Jr has invested in Crispr technology. Financially disclosers released in Jan 2025 reveal he holds invested in Crispr therapeutics which specialists in gene editing technologies, as well as Dragon Fly Therapeutics which focuses on immunotherapies. So, despite his history of expressing concerns against gene-editing therapy. He did state he would divest from these companies if confirmed secretary of HHS. So, Mr. Secretary, we are keeping eyes on you. 👀
I haven’t even mentioned of Elon Musk with NeuraLink and who knows what else that guy has planned. I am a big fan of DODGE and the exposure of the corruption, YET I definitely keep a skeptical eye on him as well.
The goal is not just to let people “live as their authentic selves.” The goal is to dissolve sex-based reality entirely, making people dependent on medical interventions for life. This isn’t liberation—it’s medical enslavement.
Brave New World Revisited: The Synthetic Creation of Culture
Earlier this year I read Huxley’s Brave New World, and it didn’t read as fiction, it read as he had a crystal ball into the future. In his dystopia, human reproduction was industrialized, the family unit was obsolete, and people were engineered for compliance under the guise of “progress.” Sound familiar? The push for synthetic reproduction, the erasure of sex-based identity, and the growing narrative that biology itself is a problem all mirror Huxley’s warning.
Jennifer Bilek exposes how transhumanism is the real endgame. The same corporate interests promoting gender ideology are also pioneering artificial wombs, genetically modified embryos, and bioengineered organ harvesting. This is a world where human beings are no longer conceived but manufactured. Where the natural, biological family is replaced by state-sanctioned, lab-grown “life.”
Huxley warned us about a future where people would love their servitude—where the loss of freedom would be reframed as liberation. That future is unfolding now. The question is: Are we resisting dehumanization, or are we embracing it under a new name?
The Erasure of Women Illustration by Greg Groesch
Fighting Back Against the Erasure of Women
So what do we do?
Refuse to comply with ideological language. Women are women—not AFABs.
Call out the erasure of sex in medicine and policy. We must advocate for sex-based language in healthcare.
Expose the billionaires funding this movement. This is not grassroots activism—it’s top-down social engineering.
The fight to protect reality isn’t just about ideology. It’s about protecting women, safeguarding science, and ensuring future generations don’t grow up in a world where “female” is a forbidden word.
Reframing the New Year: Rejecting Quick Fixes for Sustainable Growth
Welcome to Season 3 of Taste of Truth Tuesdays! 🎉 We’re kicking off with a bang, diving deep into a topic near and dear to my heart. After two decades in the fitness industry, I’ve got some game-changing insights, tips, and no-nonsense truths to share. You won’t want to miss a single minute of today’s episode💪✨
The New Year is here, and you’ve probably seen the tidal wave of ads pushing detoxes, cleanses, and resets. Let me stop you right there: NO, you do NOT need a detox, cleanse, or reset after the holidays.
When I say, “quick fix,” what comes to mind? Maybe it’s a detox tea promising to cleanse your system, a miracle shake that claims to replace your meals, or even the latest pharmaceutical weight-loss drug like Ozempic, used off label and hailed as the “solution” to stubborn fat. Quick fixes thrive on our desperation for immediate results. They’re marketed as shortcuts—whispering, “This will solve all your problems,” no patience or hard work required. 🫣
But here’s the hard truth: quick fixes rarely fix anything. Whether it’s a detox, a cleanse, or a medication designed to suppress your appetite, they often bypass the root causes of your concerns. They don’t teach you how to nourish your body or rebuild a healthy relationship with food. Instead, they slap a band-aid on symptoms while creating long-term consequences for your metabolism, hormones, and mental well-being.
Take Ozempic, for example. While it’s been touted as a “miracle” weight-loss drug, there are some serious health warnings that aren’t always front and center. As with significant weight loss in general, some people using these drugs experience muscle loss and lower bone density, increasing the risk of injury—especially for older adults.
In animal studies, semaglutide (the drug behind Ozempic) has been linked to an increased risk of thyroid cancer, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. While we don’t yet know if this risk translates to humans, it’s something to be aware of—especially if you have a family history of thyroid conditions. And let’s not forget the FDA’s 2023 warning about potential intestinal blockage associated with these medications, although the evidence so far shows it’s more about slowed gastric emptying and vomiting mimicking an obstruction.
And here’s the kicker—while these quick fixes promise to reshape your body in a short period, they often come with a slew of side effects that are rarely discussed. The key to managing those risks? Pay attention to your diet, listen to your body, and stay hydrated. But I can’t help but wonder: is the price tag on this “quick fix” really worth it?
In my own journey, I repeatedly fell for these promises—from replacing real food with Smart Start cereal, to taking ephedra and green tea energy pills in high school, and in my 30s, chasing the next shake, cleanse, or some ridiculous holistic protocol that promised to transform my body overnight. Spoiler alert: it never worked the way I hoped, and sometimes, it made things worse.
Today, we’re pulling back the curtain on quick fixes, diving into why they’re so appealing, and exposing the truth about detoxes, cleanses, and even medications like Ozempic. Because your health deserves more than a shortcut—it deserves a sustainable, thoughtful approach rooted in a long-term sense of well-being.
Let’s start by breaking down the dangers of these so-called “solutions” and why they often cause more harm than good.
🚨 The Dangers of Detoxes and Cleanses
Let me start by sharing a bit about my personal experience with Isagenix, an MLM I was involved in for four years. Their program revolved around “shake days” and “cleanse days.” Shake days required replacing two meals with shakes, leaving you with just 1,200-1,500 calories a day. Cleanse days were even more extreme: 24-48 hours of intermittent fasting where you consumed only “approved” snacks—essentially glorified candies from their product line.
These cleanse days were touted as the secret to triggering autophagy, “cleaning up your cells,” and building muscle while shedding fat. But for me, the reality couldn’t have been further from the sales pitch. Instead of gaining energy, building muscle, or feeling cleansed, I experienced fatigue, hormonal disruptions, and a worsening relationship with food.
I want to clarify here: if you’re under the care of a well-educated, integrative professional who has run labs and prescribed a short-term liver cleanse or restrictive protocol tailored to your needs, this isn’t directed at you. I’m talking to the folks who, like me, were misled by the marketing tactics of supplement companies, MLMs, and Pinterest ads. These programs prey on our insecurities while delivering none of the promised benefits.
Here’s why these quick-fix detoxes and cleanses are more harmful than helpful:
They Deplete Your Energy Over Time
On those “cleanse days,” I often felt like I was running on fumes. Severely restricting food intake forces your body to pull from its energy reserves, leaving you fatigued, irritable, and unable to function optimally. Over time, this restriction triggers metabolic adaptation, slowing down your metabolism to conserve energy. Instead of speeding up fat loss, it makes your body cling to every calorie it gets, making future weight management even harder.
They Disrupt Hormonal Health
My cleanse days wreaked havoc on my hormones. The lack of consistent nourishment interferes with thyroid hormone conversion and overactivated the adrenal glands, increasing cortisol production. Chronic high cortisol levels undermine immunity, energy, and mood. For women, the risks are even greater. Prolonged restriction sends your body into survival mode, disrupting your reproductive hormones. I dealt with irregular periods, cold extremities, and even hair thinning—all signs that my body was prioritizing survival over reproduction.
They Create Nutritional Deficiencies
When you cut out food, you cut out nutrients. The shakes and supplements from Isagenix were marketed as “nutritionally complete,” but they couldn’t compare to the diversity and richness of whole foods. This reliance on synthetic supplements is not a sustainable way to meet your nutritional needs.
They Damage Your Relationship with Food
One of the most insidious effects of these programs was how they warped my relationship with food. By constantly restricting and “cleansing,” I lost touch with hunger cues and began seeing food as the enemy. At one point, my appetite diminished, which might sound like a win in hustle culture, but it was actually a red flag. Our bodies need food to fuel productivity, creativity, and overall well-being. Sacrificing health in the name of hustle isn’t the flex diet culture makes it out to be.
The Bottom Line
Programs like the one I was involved in sell you the illusion of health while delivering energy depletion, hormonal imbalance, and long-term damage to your metabolism. Sustainable growth comes from nourishing your body, listening to its needs, and rejecting the false promises of quick fixes.
If you’re considering a cleanse or detox, ask yourself: is this supporting my long-term health, or am I falling for a marketing gimmick?
💡 What Your Body Actually Needs
Your body thrives on consistency, nourishment, and balance. That’s why the 365 Easy Challenge focuses on six foundational habits to create sustainable growth:
Gratitude – Build a positive mindset by reflecting daily on what you’re thankful for.
Digestion – Support your gut with mindful eating practices and nourishing foods.
Sleep – Prioritize restorative rest to boost energy and metabolism.
Mindset/Self Talk – By reframing, shift your mindset to approach challenges with resilience.
Stress Management & Nutrition – Balance your life and plate without extremes.
These habits aren’t about perfection—they’re about progress. You can join in any time and make this year about sustainable, steady growth. One phrase I often say often to clients:
“Slow is steady and steady is fast.”
Seven Things I Wish I Knew Sooner
In this episode, we’re tackling the first four lessons I wish I’d learned earlier in my nutrition and fitness journey. These are insights that can save you time, frustration, and even your health.
1. Extreme Diets Have Extreme Consequences
If you’ve ever thought, “I just need to cut calories harder,” let me stop you right there. Extreme diets may promise quick results, but they come with a hefty price tag on your body.
Research, such as the Biggest Loser Study (PMID: 27136388), reveals a major roadblock: metabolic adaptation. Your body isn’t wired for vanity; it’s wired for survival. When you restrict calories excessively, your body compensates to preserve energy—this can continue for years after the diet ends (PMID: 35729736).
Here’s what that looks like:
Calorie restriction becomes less effective over time.
Your metabolic rate slows down, making it harder to maintain or continue fat loss.
You feel frustrated, but it’s your body hitting the brakes, not your willpower failing.
Takeaway: Your body isn’t out to sabotage you; it’s protecting you. The solution? Nutritional periodization. Incorporate diet breaks, maintenance phases, and even reverse dieting to minimize these adaptations.
2. Restrictive Diets Wreck Hormonal Health
Chronic or yo-yo dieting isn’t just stressful for your mind—it’s a major stressor for your body. Prolonged restrictions can negatively impact your:
Adrenal system: Chronic stress triggers the HPA axis, increasing cortisol. While cortisol is essential in moderation, consistently high levels can negatively impact energy, mood, and immunity.
Thyroid: High stress interferes with TSH production and the conversion of thyroid hormones, which are vital for metabolism.
Reproductive hormones: Missing or irregular periods, hair loss, and constant coldness? These are signs your body isn’t feeling “safe” enough to prioritize reproduction.
Minimum body fat is necessary to maintain reproductive health, especially for women. Hormones like progesterone, critical for ovulation and metabolism, rely on nutrient availability and a sense of safety
Takeaway: Your body isn’t the enemy—it’s doing its best with the fuel and signals you’re giving it. Support your hormones by eating enough, maintaining balance, and avoiding extreme restrictions. PMID: 2282736
3. Exercise + Intermittent Fasting = Double Trouble for Women
Adding intense exercise to intermittent fasting might sound like a fast track to results, but for women, it’s a recipe for dysfunction. Here’s why:
Women’s bodies are highly sensitive to kisspeptin, a neuropeptide critical for reproductive and endocrine health. Diets like keto and intermittent fasting can disrupt kisspeptin production, leading to:
Endocrine dysfunction.
Menstrual irregularities.
Depression and increased abdominal fat (yes, the opposite of what you wanted).
Half of all active women aren’t eating enough to support basic functions, let alone training. The long-term impact? Impaired thyroid function, stalled muscle growth, and metabolic imbalance.
Takeaway: Women need nourishment, especially when training hard. Fasting and exercise together often do more harm than good, leaving your body stressed instead of thriving.
4. A Healthy Relationship with Exercise is Flexible and Fulfilling
Exercise is amazing for your body and mind, but even a good thing can become harmful when taken to extremes.
Exercise addiction is a compulsive engagement in physical activity, despite negative consequences. It often comes with:
Excessive rules and rigidity.
Feelings of shame before, during, or after workouts.
Withdrawal symptoms when unable to exercise.
In contrast, a healthy relationship with exercise is:
Flexible: It allows for variety in movement types and durations.
Fulfilling: It’s rooted in joy and self-care, not punishment or guilt.
Takeaway: The best kind of movement is the one that enriches your life, not rules it. Exercise should add value to your day, not take away from it.
✨ Let’s Leave Hustle Culture in 2024👋
Hustle culture says, “Eat less, work more, and sacrifice rest to succeed.” This mindset isn’t empowering—it’s exhausting. This year, let’s prioritize health over hustle and choose habits that energize rather than deplete.
The 365 Easy Challenge is here to help you make that shift. Whether it’s gratitude, better sleep, or balanced nutrition, these small steps add up to big changes over time.
Takeaway for 2025: This year, skip the detox and focus on what truly works: habits that honor your body’s needs, not a quick-fix fantasy. If you’re ready to embrace sustainable growth, join the 365 Easy Challenge and start building a foundation for lifelong health.
As we gather around our holiday tables, indulging in sweet treats and sipping warm drinks, there’s something deeply unsettling happening behind the scenes of what we consume every day. A recent study has revealed something I find all too familiar: intimidation tactics used by industries like Big Tobacco, ultra-processed food companies, and alcohol sectors to bully and silence researchers, whistleblowers, and anyone challenging their agenda.
These industries have a long history of using misinformation, manufactured doubt, and emotional manipulation to protect their profits—and it’s not just limited to public health campaigns. This plays out in everyday conversations, too. It’s a pattern that many of us have experienced firsthand, especially those who advocate for healthier lifestyles and more transparency in what we put in our bodies.
A Christmas Paradox: Big Food’s Gaslighting & the Anti-MLM Pushback
This tactic—used by Big Food to discredit critics—reminds me of the way people are shamed or bullied for questioning processed foods or advocating for healthier diets. If you’ve ever pointed out the risks of sugary snacks or fast food, you’ve probably been labeled an extremist, a health-obsessed “wellness warrior,” or worse, a “purity culture” advocate. I can’t help but feel this is just another form of gaslighting, where we’re told that it’s worse to worry about the ingredients in our food than it is to consume those ingredients, even if they are known to contribute to chronic health conditions.
Ironically, this kind of manipulation is the same strategy Big Tobacco used for decades to muddy the waters around the health risks of smoking. And now, ultra-processed food companies are doing the same thing—distracting us from the very real, documented consequences of a poor diet.
Why We Need to Trust Ourselves, Not the Experts
What frustrates me is how the anti-MLM community often jumps on wellness advocates who want to clean up their diets for health reasons. While I agree that MLMs are a breeding ground for manipulation, this should not mean we ignore the very real need to question the food industry’s stranglehold on our diets and health. It’s vital to recognize that not all experts have your best interests at heart. Many of the mainstream recommendations we’re told to follow come from organizations or industries with questionable motives—whether it’s Big Pharma, Big Food, or Big Tobacco. These same industries have a long history of misleading the public, and many of their experts are bought and paid for by corporate interests.
Wanting to improve your diet to manage or reverse chronic health conditions shouldn’t be dismissed as obsessive or extreme. It’s a rational, self-preserving choice that empowers you to take control of your health, even when the mainstream narrative tells you otherwise.
Unwrapping the Truth This Holiday Season
This holiday season, let’s unwrap a new perspective: critical thinking over consumerism, authenticity over convenience, and self-empowerment over external pressures. It’s time we stop letting industries dictate our health choices and start reclaiming agency in what we put into our bodies.
If you’ve ever been gaslighted for your food choices, or made to feel like you’re ‘too much’ for caring about your health, know you’re not alone. The more we learn about these intimidation tactics, the better equipped we’ll be to call them out.
As we approach the new year, let’s challenge the status quo—questioning not just what’s on our plates, but the motives of the systems that feed us.
What’s a racist, homophobe, sexist, bigot, or hater? Apparently, anyone winning an argument with a liberal these days.
This year has been a wild ride. It began with me terrified of Satan, demons, and the Apocalypse, only to be ending it realizing the real danger isn’t hellfire—it’s the dogmas we create here on Earth. I didn’t grow up religious. In fact, I was raised secular, moved to Portland, OR after college, and could give you a TED Talk on progressive ideals. But then the pandemic hit, and somewhere between sourdough starters and doomscrolling, I found myself deep in the throes of fundamentalist Christianity.
That’s right—I started the year in a cult. It took months to deconstruct my faith, peel back the layers of fear-based control, and reimagine spirituality beyond the man-made monotheistic God I was sold. Yet, just as I was catching my breath, I noticed something chilling: the same patterns of zealotry I had fled were alive and well in the secular world.
Wokeness, with its sermons on systemic oppression and sacraments of allyship, has become the new secular religion. It demands unwavering faith, punishes heretics, and offers little room for redemption. And just like the fire-and-brimstone preachers I’d left behind, its most fervent believers seem less interested in dialogue and more intent on moral superiority.
Thought leaders like John McWhorter (Woke Racism), Yasmine Mohammed (Unveiled), and Douglas Murray (The Madness of Crowds) have drawn the same parallels: woke ideology mirrors religious extremism, complete with its own prophets and purges. And as someone who’s lived through both kinds of radicalism, I’m here to tell you—it’s not just unsettling; it’s dangerous.
How woke ideology mirrors religious extremism
In my podcast episode titled Faith Unbound: Navigating the Process of Disentanglement—or rather, Deconversion—I delved into my initial discovery of the Ex-evangelical Christian network. Back in February 2024, it felt like a lifeline, a safe haven for questioning my former religious beliefs. But after 6–7 months of immersion, patterns began to emerge. While the movement has been instrumental for many, I couldn’t ignore the creeping rigidity and tribalism. The hunger for certainty, the need to be on the “right side,” often replaces one dogma with another.
A striking example of this surfaced in Sexvangelicals’ episode How to Do Social Justice This Election Season Without Being a Jackass. They state:
“November’s presidential election offers a stark contrast between two types of government. One is democracy, built on the idea that many people have voices and, ideally, a government that serves a broad population. The other is autocracy, which operates on the belief that only a few have a say. Autocracies, like the 2024 Republican Party, often communicate through tactics such as blame, repression, and fear-mongering. In our latest episode, we discuss common communication strategies used by autocracies and how progressives and pro-democracy voters can avoid responding in ways that reinforce jackassdom.”
My response? “It’s not your enemies, it’s the system.” This narrative reduces a complex political landscape into a simplistic moral battle, with one side as saviors of democracy and the other as agents of autocracy. But this dichotomy misses the bigger picture. Who really shapes policy in America?
A 2014 study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, often dubbed the “Oligarchy Study,” analyzed policy decisions across two decades. It revealed that elites and organized interest groups wield disproportionate influence over government decisions, while the average citizen’s impact is negligible. This stark reality transcends partisan politics and lays bare a systemic issue: power isn’t held by the left or right—it’s concentrated in the hands of those who profit from our division.
By framing every election as a battle for democracy versus tyranny, we’re falling into the trap of distraction. The real question isn’t, “Which side am I on?” but, “Who benefits from keeping me here, fighting, and not looking beyond this binary?”
The claim that the Republican Party represents an autocracy, as made by Sexvangelicals, is not just simplistic—it’s laughably disconnected from reality. To label one political party as authoritarian while ignoring the bipartisan complicity in maintaining an oligarchic system is either naïve or willfully ignorant.
Take the oligarchic nature of U.S. politics. Both major parties have long benefited from the concentration of wealth and power at the top. Consider the case of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose net worth has ballooned through stock trades that suspiciously align with her legislative influence. Or Barack Obama (Barry Soetoro), who went from public servant to multi-millionaire, cashing in on book deals, speaking engagements, and lucrative partnerships with Netflix after leaving office.
Then there’s President Joe Biden. While progressives champion him as a defender of democracy, his record is far from pristine. Most recently, questions surrounding his son Hunter Biden’s international business dealings—spanning over a decade—have drawn scrutiny. Hunter’s alleged tax evasion and unregistered foreign lobbying have raised concerns, yet he continues to receive leniency from the justice system.
This isn’t to excuse Republicans from criticism, but the suggestion that they alone embody authoritarian tendencies is absurd when Democrats have equally reaped the rewards of an oligarchic system. Both parties serve the interests of economic elites and organized lobbyists far more faithfully than they do the average voter.
The Magnet, from Puck, 1911.(Udo J. Keppler / Library of Congress)
The bipartisan reality of the oligarchy dismantles the “democracy versus autocracy” narrative. For instance, the same Gilens and Page study cited earlier reveals that the preferences of the bottom 90% of income earners have statistically no impact on policy outcomes. Meanwhile, corporate donors and lobbying groups continue to hold sway over legislation regardless of which party is in power.
By framing Republicans as the sole villains in this story, Sexvangelicals perpetuates the kind of shallow tribalism that fuels division while leaving the real culprits—wealthy elites and corporate interests—untouched. The truth is that our democracy has been compromised for decades, and it will remain so until both sides of the aisle are held accountable for their role in preserving this oligarchic system.
Instead of directing anger at individuals or parties, we should be asking: How do we break free from a system designed to keep us pointing fingers at each other while those in power profit from the chaos?
From Crunchy Hippie to Conservative Christian Pipeline: My Journey Through the Radicalization Maze
Growing up secular, I’d have laughed at the idea that I would someday align with conservative or religious ideologies. Portland, Oregon, was my playground of progressive ideals—a city where conservatism felt like the root of every societal ill. But life has a way of challenging our convictions. Late in the pandemic, isolated and seeking meaning, I fell into an extreme version of Christianity. What I once dismissed as unthinkable became my new normal—until it wasn’t. Earlier this year, I deconstructed those beliefs, peeling back the layers of what led me there. Read/listen all about HERE!
Now, I can see the flaws and virtues of both worlds, which is why I find the frame of mind in deconstruction spaces puzzling. Many accounts misrepresent or overgeneralize conservatives—the very people they once were or grew up with—and cast the same stones they once had thrown at them.
It reminds me of this quote from the book The Righteous Mind:
“I had escaped from my prior partisan mind-set (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later) and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society. It felt good to be released from partisan anger. And once I was no longer angry, I was no longer committed to reaching the conclusion that righteous anger demands: we are right, they are wrong.”
Deconstructing past beliefs should be about nuance, growth, and intellectual humility—not trading one form of black-and-white thinking for another. When we fail to empathize with others’ moral frameworks, we miss out on a deeper understanding of the human experience.
Many in the ex-evangelical space now lean far left in their political views, where values like care, fairness, and empathy take center stage. Conservative values like loyalty and authority are dismissed or viewed with suspicion, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality.
This cultural shift into victimhood is explored further in The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, who identify three “Great Untruths” that help explain these societal trends:
1) “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker,”
2) “Always trust your feelings,”
3) “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.”
These untruths, they argue, contribute to fragility, discourage critical thinking, and promote a tribal mentality—characteristics that are increasingly evident in both the deconstruction space and parts of the progressive left. The focus on emotional responses over rational thought and the growing divide between “us” and “them” only strengthens these dynamics. For a deeper dive into this.
Woke Ideology as a Secular Faith: A Closer Look
“What we’re seeing isn’t a quest for justice but a demand for unquestioning orthodoxy.”
John McWhorter argues that wokeism functions like a full-fledged religion. It provides a moral framework that mirrors traditional religious beliefs. Instead of concepts like original sin, wokeism offers “privilege,” positioning those with it as morally compromised. In place of rituals like prayer, adherents perform acts like confessing their biases. And, similar to the salvation promised in traditional religions, salvation in wokeism comes through activism and striving for societal change. He warns that its refusal to tolerate dissent turns it into a rigid orthodoxy rather than a genuine quest for justice. For many, including those who’ve deconstructed evangelical faith, this framework hits uncomfortably close to home.
Many of the individuals I met and conversed with who now identify as progressive or left leaning have simply exchanged the evangelical radicalism of their past for their new liberal beliefs. Social justice, in this sense, has become their new End Times—complete with the same apocalyptic fervor. And it’s painfully obvious.
Douglas Murray discusses this analysis further in The Madness of Crowds. He suggests that wokeism often serves as a substitute for religion in today’s secular world. As belief in traditional religions has waned, people have sought meaning elsewhere—and wokeism fills that void. It provides clear rules and a sense of belonging, but in doing so, it also shuts down open debate and nuanced conversation.
The New Authority: From Sky Daddy to State Agencies
A striking similarity between fundamentalist religion and woke ideology is the relentless worship of authority. For those who’ve left behind their “big sky daddy,” that void has been filled by institutions like the CDC, FDA, and government agencies. The pandemic demonstrated how blind faith can easily shift from divine to institutional.
This is where the religion of scientism enters the picture—where reason and science are elevated to the status of ultimate truth. Figures who present themselves as “experts” rely on surface-level expertise and selective data to craft narratives that appear authoritative, yet fail under scrutiny. They become the “fake intellectuals,” as Franklin O’Kanu calls them, feeding the cult of expertise while often lacking real intellectual rigor. In public health, this plays out with the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, which further complicates the narrative of impartiality.
The “revolving door” describes the flow of personnel between agencies like the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry. This cycle blurs the lines between public service and corporate interest, with former regulators influencing policies that benefit the very companies they once oversaw—creating a potential conflict of interest that’s staggering.
In this new system, the scientific establishment becomes the new authority—replacing the monotheistic idea of God with the “god” of reason and data. For those in the deconstruction space, this is a new form of dogma. It stifles curiosity, dismisses dissent, and discourages critical thinking—all in the name of progress. This mirrors the rigid certainty and tribalism found in the religious structures people sought to escape.
Worshipping “science” or blindly trusting clinical trials can be misleading. While clinical trials are seen as vital for medical progress, they are often heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, which funds a vast majority of these trials. This creates a conflict of interest that can skew results and delay critical information about the risks of drugs. Examples like the Vioxx scandal, where a painkiller was marketed despite internal knowledge of its dangers, and the Tamiflu case, where the effectiveness of the drug was overstated, show how corporate interests can shape clinical trial outcomes. Clinical trials, while important, are not always as objective or transparent as they seem.
Empowering Dangerous Systems
Yasmine Mohammed’s Unveiled pushes the conversation even more, explaining how wokeism can actually empower authoritarian regimes. One key point she makes is how Western progressives, in the name of cultural relativism, avoid criticizing radical Islam. This gives a platform to extremist ideologies, which harms vulnerable groups like women and minorities. She argues,
“By shielding oppressive practices from scrutiny, wokeism betrays the very people it claims to protect.”
The binary “oppressor versus oppressed” narrative has become a staple of modern discourse, particularly within the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. This oversimplified lens reduces complex geopolitical and historical realities to a stark dichotomy, fostering a dangerous environment where nuance is lost. It’s unnerving to see college students waving the flag of Palestine while simultaneously undermining U.S. monuments and values, while spreading fear mongering lies about Project 2025, and comparing Trump to Hitler. These contradictions are not only mind-numbing but also deeply troubling, signaling a shift toward ideological extremism that dismisses the complexities of any issue in favor of emotional, binary thinking.
Antisemitism has spiked globally after the October 7 attacks on Israel, but this tragic reality has also fueled the misuse of the term “antisemitism” to suppress valid critiques of Israeli policies. Labeling critics as antisemitic conflates political criticism with hate, shutting down meaningful dialogue essential to addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict’s complexities.
This approach mirrors patterns within woke ideology, where dissent is often silenced in the name of ideological purity. The weaponization of identity politics and accusations hinders nuanced discussions and reinforces systems of power, obstructing pathways to justice and true understanding.
Vivek Ramaswamy, in Woke, Inc., adds another layer to this by discussing how authoritarian regimes like China’s Communist Party (CCP) take advantage of woke rhetoric. According to Ramaswamy, the CCP amplifies America’s internal divisions—often fueled by wokeism—to weaken the West. By focusing on these cultural rifts, China diverts attention from its own human rights abuses, all while strengthening its geopolitical position. This is part of China’s broader geopolitical strategy, which seeks to deflect attention from its authoritarian practices while exploiting divisions in Western societies.
This pattern can be seen as part of a broader effort to exploit the distractions created by cultural conflicts to enhance its influence in global organizations, trade, and international relations. For example, while Western nations debate internal social issues, China continues its expansive Belt and Road Initiative, which increases its influence across developing nations.
Heretics and the Price of Dissent
Religious movements and extreme ideologies, like wokeism, are often defined by their treatment of dissenters or heretics. Woke spaces, much like traditional religious communities, are quick to condemn those who question or criticize. Whether it’s TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) or former progressives like Yasmine Mohammed, those who dissent face severe backlash. This exclusionary behavior creates a stifling environment, not dissimilar to how traditional religions treat apostates. As Douglas Murray puts it, “The hatred reserved for heretics is often more intense than that directed at outsiders.”
But this dynamic is about more than just ideological rigidity—it’s also rooted in human psychology. The human brain is naturally drawn to certainty. When we embrace extreme ideologies, we seek control over our environment, which provides us a sense of stability and security. Research in neuroscience shows that when our beliefs are challenged, we experience discomfort, but defending them can trigger a dopamine response, rewarding us with a sense of control. The brain gets a “hit” from maintaining a sense of certainty, even if it’s at the cost of nuance or rational discussion.
In fact, this need for certainty can become addictive. The human brain often craves certainty in the form of binary thinking—where things are either completely right or completely wrong. This type of thinking is satisfying because it shields us from the cognitive dissonance that arises when faced with complexity or ambiguity. In the case of woke ideology, the call for absolute adherence to certain beliefs or behaviors is not just about social justice—it’s a way to satisfy that neurological need for control. When we feel justified in our beliefs and actions, we receive a dopamine “reward,” reinforcing the behavior.
This addiction to certainty can also be seen in extreme partisanship. The more entrenched we become in one side, the more our brain is rewarded for defending it. It’s why many people in the deconstruction space or on the political left engage in “mental gymnastics”—creating justifications and rationalizations that protect their beliefs. This isn’t just about ideology; it’s about keeping that dopamine reward flowing, keeping the illusion of control intact, and avoiding the discomfort of uncertainty.
The problem is this pattern of thinking isn’t conducive to open dialogue or true critical thinking. The “us vs. them” mentality becomes more pronounced, and the space for nuance, disagreement, and personal growth shrinks. Instead of engaging with opposing views, individuals self-censor or double down on their beliefs, further entrenched in the addictive cycle of ideological purity.
Moving Forward: A Balanced Approach
It’s important to note that this critique isn’t meant to dismiss the noble goals of social justice movements. Addressing inequality and harm in the world is crucial. But when these movements demand absolute loyalty and punish dissent, they lose sight of the very ideals they claim to uphold.
What do you guys think? How do you balance the pursuit of justice with the need for free thought?
Do you see these religious parallels in woke ideology? Are they helpful in understanding these dynamics, or do they oversimplify the issue?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Comment below, and don’t miss my podcast episode with Yasmine Mohammed dropping 2025 for a deeper dive into these topics!
We’re back! After a transformative and eye-opening second season, I’m excited to announce that Season 3 of Taste of Truth Tuesdays will kick off on December 31st. (Audio says Jan 7th, which was the original start date, I bumped it up a week.) This season promises to be packed with even more riveting conversations and insightful discussions. We’re diving into the complexities of spirituality, healing, activism, mental health, body image, and the power dynamics that shape our lives.
Here’s a sneak peek at the incredible guests you’ll hear from in the upcoming season:
Connie A. Baker: Spiritual and Religious Abuse
Connie A. Baker brings her expertise and personal experience to discuss the destructive impacts of spiritually abusive messages. These messages often erode our self-trust, leaving us vulnerable to further harm. In our conversation, we’ll explore the process of recovering from spiritual abuse and why it’s essential not to rush this journey. Connie will help us understand how survivors—especially those of us with a default setting of ‘push through’—can slow down and approach the healing process with patience. This wisdom is invaluable for true recovery, and I can’t wait for you to hear Connie’s insights.
Yasmine Mohammed: Escaping Radical Islam and Advocating for Women’s Rights
Yasmine Mohammed, a human rights activist and author of Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam, joins me to share her powerful story. After escaping a forced, abusive marriage to an Al-Qaeda operative, Yasmine became an advocate for women’s rights. Through her non-profit organization, Free Hearts, Free Minds, she works tirelessly to support individuals seeking freedom from oppressive environments. Her memoir and activism offer a deeply personal and courageous perspective on overcoming adversity and empowering women. Her journey is one of survival, strength, and defiance.
Leah Denton: Therapy Harm and Power Dynamics in Mental Health
Leah Denton, the brilliant host of Psycho/Therapy podcast, will bring her deep insights into the harm that can occur within the therapeutic space and pastoral counseling. Leah, a survivor of therapy harm herself, shines a light on the ethical and systemic flaws within the mental health industry. She amplifies the voices of those who’ve been silenced and challenges us to rethink the power dynamics that can influence our healing. Leah’s work is a powerful call to action for better, more ethical care in therapy and beyond.
The Wellbeing Doctors: Body Image and Social Media’s Impact on Mental Health
Dr. Hannah Jarman and Ms. Claudia Liu, the dynamic team behind The Wellbeing Doctors, will discuss the intersection of body image, disordered eating, and the profound impact that social media has on our mental health. In their research, they’ve uncovered how active engagement with peers on social media can immediately reduce body image satisfaction, particularly for women. Together, we’ll explore how we need to redefine both beauty and health in ways that promote our true well-being, beyond appearances.
Wellness with Jaqui: The Real Story Behind Nutrition Research
Jaqui is back to break down the often-confusing world of nutrition research. If you’ve ever been baffled by conflicting diet headlines, this episode is for you. Jaqui will help us understand why nutrition research can be so complex, and how ‘statistical significance’ might not always mean what we think it does. This episode will bring clarity to the world of nutrition science and challenge the headlines we often see.
Franklin O’Kanu: Bridging Science, Spirituality, and Practical Wisdom
Franklin O’Kanu, also known as The Alchemik Pharmacist, is the founder of Unorthodoxy, a Substack that explores the spiritual dimensions of modern life through a holistic lens. With a Doctorate in Pharmacy and a background that bridges Pentecostal Christianity, Eastern philosophies, quantum physics, and Jungian psychology, Franklin offers a truly unique perspective. We’ll dive into his journey—from challenging conventional views during the pandemic to crafting a plan rooted in spiritual and natural principles. Franklin’s exploration of science, spirituality, and practical wisdom is sure to offer deep insights and foster a deeper understanding of the world around us.
This season is going to be a wild ride, full of wisdom, courage, and deep dives into essential topics that will challenge and inspire you. Don’t miss out on the launch of Taste of Truth Tuesdays Season 3 on December 31st! Make sure you’re subscribed, so you never miss an episode.
Let’s talk about Kangen Water—a glorified water filter that’s convinced half the wellness community it can practically save the world. Kangen is often presented as the “it” product that will cleanse your body, raise your pH, and cure whatever ails you. From detoxification to slowing the aging process, the claims are endless. But does it actually do any of this, or is it just one expensive bottle of hype?
As someone who loves to blog about wellness trends and help people navigate the often confusing and sometimes downright misleading claims in the wellness industry, I’m here to cut through the noise. It’s time to stop buying into pseudoscience that preys on our desire for easy fixes. The wellness world is filled with products promising miracle results—products that are often built on shaky science or worse, none at all. Kangen Water is no exception.
Let’s break down whether this water really deserves its pedestal, or if it’s just another trend feeding into a culture of overpriced wellness gimmicks.
Water: Neutral, Alkaline, and Misleading Marketing
Water (H2O) typically has a neutral pH, sitting around 7, but it naturally dissociates into hydrogen (H) and hydroxide (OH) ions. The more hydrogen ions in water, the more acidic it becomes, while the more OH ions, the more basic (alkaline) it gets. In pure water, these ions are present in a small amount, and they tend to balance out by reforming into H2O. So, what is alkaline water, and what’s in it?
Real alkaline water contains something to make it basic—often baking soda. Some products claim to alkalinize water electrically, but here’s the catch: any ions in the water will eventually neutralize each other. In the end, pure water will always strive for a pH of 7. The idea that you can “alkalinize” water and benefit your body is where the pseudoscience comes in.
The claim is that when the body becomes “too acidic,” it can lead to a slew of health issues, and drinking alkaline water can balance things out. But here’s the truth: The body works tirelessly to maintain a very narrow pH range—7 to 7.4—in the blood and tissues. Any fluctuation outside this range is potentially dangerous, which is why the body has mechanisms to keep pH in check, like regulating breathing to balance CO2 levels and adjusting urine acidity.
Put simply, the idea that drinking alkaline water will “balance” your body’s pH is misleading. The body is already equipped with efficient systems for managing pH balance, and consuming regular food or liquids, regardless of their pH, won’t disrupt this delicate equilibrium. That’s right—your body’s pH is mostly unaffected by alkaline or acidic foods and beverages. This is why the whole alkaline diet and water movement is rooted in pseudoscience.
While some studies have tried to link an alkaline diet or water to benefits like preventing cancer or osteoporosis, they fail to provide solid evidence. A 2016 systematic review found no proof that alkaline water prevents or treats cancer. A 2011 review similarly found no support for an alkaline diet’s protective effects on bone health. So why do people keep buying into it? The answer lies in clever marketing, celebrity endorsements, and the placebo effect.
In reality, the only plausible benefit of alkaline water may be for those suffering from acid reflux, where it could act as a temporary antacid. But even this is not proven, and established treatments for acid reflux are far more effective.
So, the next time you’re thinking about splurging on Kangen Water or an expensive alkaline water machine, ask yourself: “Am I really buying science—or am I buying into pseudoscience wrapped in a fancy bottle?”
First off, let’s clear up a few things. The Kangen machine has only a single filter, and it’s inadequate for dealing with many of the toxins found in tap water. In fact, because of shortcomings with the filter, the Kangen machine just might change your life—for the worse. The filter in the Kangen machine doesn’t reduce levels of heavy metals or salt, meaning that if you’re relying on it for purity, you’re still drinking some of the same contaminants that you started with.
The Claim: Alkaline Water = Health Savior
Kangen Water’s marketing suggests that its alkaline properties can balance your body’s pH, improve health, and even slow aging. And while this sounds great, there’s a big problem: our stomach acid has an essential job to do, and it does not care about alkaline water. The stomach is a pH powerhouse, designed to digest food with an acidity of around 1.5 to 3.5, which is harsh enough to break down whatever you eat. So, if you’re gulping down alkaline water thinking it’s going to go in and “balance your body’s pH,” hate to break it to you, but it’s being neutralized by stomach acid in a matter of seconds.
The Antioxidant Claims: A Splash of Misleading Science
Another claim is that Kangen Water provides a “high antioxidant” effect by adding molecular hydrogen (H₂) to the water. Real antioxidants like vitamins C and E are absorbed into the bloodstream, where they tackle free radicals directly. But hydrogen’s benefits may not even survive digestion—our stomach acid can neutralize hydrogen molecules before they’re absorbed. While a few small studies suggest hydrogen-rich water might offer some benefits, there’s little robust evidence to back Kangen Water’s lofty promises.
Bottom line? Real antioxidants from food and supplements are a safer, cheaper bet than a pricey filter.
Science Says: Um, No Thanks
There’s simply no solid science to back the idea that alkaline water has sweeping health benefits. Hydration? Absolutely important. But a magic pH fix? Not really. The idea that our bodies need “detoxing” is an incredibly popular concept in the wellness space. If you spend any time on social media or browsing health blogs, you’ve likely come across expensive detox programs, supplements, or special teas that promise to cleanse your body of “toxins.” But here’s the reality: the body has its own built-in detox systems that do an exceptional job of keeping things running smoothly—without the need for any pricey detox gimmicks.
The Body’s Built-In Detox Systems
Our liver and kidneys are the real detox heroes of the body. These organs are specifically designed to filter out harmful substances and waste products, ensuring that our body remains balanced and healthy. The liver plays a central role in detoxifying harmful chemicals by metabolizing them into safer substances, which are then either excreted through bile or filtered through the blood to the kidneys for excretion via urine. These processes are efficient, effective, and happen continuously, without you having to do anything.
Liver: The liver acts like a sophisticated chemical processing plant. It filters out toxins, breaks down fats, proteins, and carbohydrates, and even helps with the digestion of food by producing bile. It’s constantly at work, breaking down substances like alcohol, medications, and other chemicals in the body, rendering them safe or neutral for excretion.
Kidneys: The kidneys are in charge of filtering waste products and excess substances (such as water, salt, and waste metabolites) from the bloodstream, which are then eliminated as urine. They also regulate the body’s fluid balance, keeping things like electrolyte levels in check, which helps maintain overall homeostasis.
These systems work synergistically to maintain a delicate balance in your body. They don’t need the help of a fancy detox program or juice cleanse—they do the job perfectly well on their own.
Why Detox Products Are Mostly a Marketing Scam
So why are detox products so popular, and why are they sold for high prices? A big part of the appeal is that these products promise to make people feel “cleaner” or “lighter” by removing toxins. But many of the ingredients in these products (whether it’s activated charcoal, herbal supplements, or teas) often lack scientific support for their detox claims. For instance, while some herbal teas might have mild diuretic effects, they don’t actually enhance the body’s ability to remove toxins in a meaningful way. In fact, some detox teas have been found to contain dangerous substances, including laxatives that can lead to dehydration and an imbalance in electrolytes.
It’s also important to note that the idea of “toxins” is often used very broadly and vaguely in the wellness industry. Toxins, in the sense that they are often described in detox marketing, are not necessarily specific substances that we need to rid ourselves of. In fact, the body regularly processes and neutralizes “toxins” naturally. The idea of a “toxic overload” is rarely grounded in scientific fact—unless, of course, you’re dealing with something like heavy metal poisoning or an actual overdose, which are medical conditions requiring professional treatment.
The Myth of Quick Fixes
The idea of quick detoxes or cleanses may also play into the human desire for immediate results. People want easy answers and fast solutions for things like weight loss, clearer skin, or improved energy. While it may be tempting to buy into the myth that you can “flush out” all your health problems in a few days, the reality is that lasting health comes from a balanced, sustainable lifestyle, not a quick cleanse. Regular hydration, a well-rounded diet, and sufficient sleep go a lot further toward maintaining your body’s natural detox processes than any supplement or fad.
Real Health Practices vs. Detox Scams
The best thing you can do to support your liver, kidneys, and overall health is to maintain a lifestyle that supports them. This means:
Drinking plenty of water (which helps kidneys function properly)
Eating a balanced diet with a variety of whole foods (rich in antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals)
Exercising regularly (to boost circulation and support liver health)
Avoiding excessive alcohol or toxins (to prevent overworking your detox systems)
Getting plenty of sleep (for cellular repair and recovery)
These practices help maintain the natural detox processes your body already does efficiently. Instead of spending money on detox products that may only leave you feeling deprived or temporarily lighter, focus on these sustainable habits that provide long-term benefits. Your body doesn’t need a detoxing break—it needs consistent support to keep running at its best.
In short, while the wellness industry promotes detox products as if they are a magic solution, the truth is that your liver, kidneys, and body as a whole have been doing the job perfectly all along.
The Role of Metabolism in Detoxification and Health
The real question you should be asking is whether your metabolic function is optimal. If it’s not, detox programs and restrictive diets are just band aids, suppressing symptoms like weight gain or chronic inflammation without addressing the root cause. And that root cause is often poor metabolic health.
What is metabolism?
It’s how efficiently and effectively your body uses energy to perform essential functions. Your metabolism impacts everything from how your cells function, to hormone production, and even the detox systems themselves.
Metabolism affects key functions such as:
Detoxification (liver, kidneys, skin)
Digestion
Hormonal output (thyroid, adrenals, insulin)
Inflammation and immune response
Menstrual cycles and reproductive health
When you focus on optimizing your metabolism through a well-rounded lifestyle—eating enough, managing stress, moving regularly, and prioritizing sleep—you support all of these systems, including detoxification. Restrictive detox diets that promise to “reset” your body do the opposite, often exacerbating metabolic imbalances.
How to Support Your Metabolism (and Detox Naturally)
Instead of relying on trendy detoxes, consider nurturing your body’s natural processes with these foundational practices:
Nourish your body rather than restricting it.
Eat a balance of protein, carbs, and healthy fats at regular intervals.
Breathe deeply to manage your nervous system.
Prioritize stress reduction and downtime (yes, even doing nothing is important).
Eat consistently, don’t skip meals.
Prioritize sleep—it’s essential for metabolic repair.
Increase daily movement—move more throughout the day!
A healthy metabolism is the foundation of a healthier body—when you heal your metabolism, you heal your whole self.
In conclusion, skip the detox fads, focus on metabolic health, and support your body’s natural detoxing systems. Your body is incredibly capable, and all it really needs is consistent care and support. 🍑
The Price Tag: Prepare to Be Shocked
Kangen Water machines range from $1,280 to almost $6,000. That’s right—almost six grand for a fancy filter. For comparison, you could buy a lifetime supply of high-quality bottled water, a well-reviewed filtration system, or even invest in a small swimming pool. And while Kangen distributors might tell you it’s an investment in your health, what they really mean is it’s an investment in their commission check.\
The Catch: Welcome to the MLM Trap
Kangen Water’s parent company, Enagic, operates through a multi-level marketing (MLM) model. That means a good chunk of their “sales” come from distributors who are also customers, encouraged to buy machines to qualify for commissions. It’s not so much about the water’s life-changing properties as it is about recruiting new people to buy machines, who then recruit others, and so on. Each sale pays up to 8 people in the “upline,” making it more about building a downline than actually selling to customers
How to Avoid the Hype
If you’re really concerned about hydration and wellness, stick to filtered water. A quality filtration system can be a great investment without the price tag or the questionable promises. If you want to experiment with pH, try adding lemon to your water. Despite its acidity, lemon can actually have an alkalizing effect on the body once metabolized, and it costs about 50 cents.
Bottom Line: Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid
Wellness should be about making informed, evidence-based choices, not falling for fancy (and pricey) illusions. Kangen Water is marketed as a wellness must-have, but a good filtration system will do the job just as well—without the cult-like MLM tactics. So next time someone tells you alkaline water is the answer, just remember: your body is already handling things perfectly well, and it doesn’t need a $5,000 machine to do its job.
Resources:
Here are some top resources to explore the science (or lack thereof) behind alkaline water and other wellness claims:
Books
1. “Bad Science” by Ben Goldacre – Critiques pseudoscientific health claims, with sections on the wellness industry.
2. “Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine” by Simon Singh & Edzard Ernst – Examines popular health trends and evaluates evidence behind them.
1. Science Vs. (Podcast by Wendy Zukerman) – Covers alkaline water in various episodes, debunking wellness trends.
2. “Alkaline Diets: Fact or Fiction?” by Dr. Mike Hansen on YouTube – A medical professional’s take on alkaline water and diets, with easy-to-understand explanations.
These resources give a broad perspective on why certain wellness claims, like those around alkaline water, often lack scientific support.
Two highly regarded resources targeting MLMs like Kangen Water, are:
1. YouTube Channels: Anti-MLM content creators on YouTube, such as Illuminaughtii and Always Marco offer thorough, engaging analyses on MLMs, including Kangen Water’s practices and claims. These creators debunk misleading promises of financial success and health benefits promoted by MLM companies, providing evidence-backed critiques and personal accounts from former members.
2. The Anti-MLM Coalition: This website hosts a wide array of articles, lists, and YouTube recommendations that critique various MLMs. They detail many companies, including Enagic (the manufacturer of Kangen Water systems), breaking down why these structures are problematic. The coalition’s articles dissect business tactics, income claims, and legal actions, helping potential recruits or current distributors understand the reality behind MLM promises.
These resources offer educational, factual content to help audiences critically evaluate MLMs and make informed decisions.
Take Control of Your Health Decisions: A Deep Dive with Just the Inserts
This week on Taste of Truth Tuesdays, we’re excited to welcome a special guest— the founder of Just the Inserts 🩺💊—as we explore her groundbreaking new book, Well Considered: A Handbook for Making Informed Medical Decisions. In this episode, we tackle one of the most vital topics in healthcare today: informed consent.
Here’s a preview of what we’ll be unpacking:
✨ What Inspired Well Considered?
What was the catalyst for creating this essential handbook? We’ll dive into the pivotal moment that led to its conception. Whether it was a personal experience or witnessing the confusion around medical decisions, you’ll hear the full backstory straight from the source.
📝 What is Informed Consent and Why Is It a Game-Changer?
Informed consent is more than a checkbox—it’s about having the knowledge and confidence to make the best choices for your health. We break down the meaning of informed consent and explore why it’s crucial for every patient to understand their options before saying ‘yes’ to a treatment.
📜 Are Inserts Just for Legal Reasons?
Some critics claim Just the Inserts causes unnecessary alarm by drawing too much attention to drug inserts. We take on these criticisms and discuss why inserts are far more than just legal protections for pharmaceutical companies. Get ready to hear why being fully informed isn’t about fear—it’s about empowerment.
💡 Feeling Rushed by Healthcare Providers? Here’s How to Stand Your Ground
Ever felt pressured by a doctor to make a snap decision? You’re not alone. We’ll share practical advice on how to slow down the conversation, ask the right questions, and ensure your voice is heard—without being rushed into treatments or medications.
💉 The Vaccine Debate: Individual Choice vs. Public Health
Vaccines are a hot topic, sparking debates about individual rights versus collective health. We’ll explore how to navigate this complex issue, finding balance between personal autonomy and the greater good when it comes to medical interventions like vaccines.
Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a prominent figure in vaccinology, and some of his colleagues recently published an article that has drawn significant attention. The article acknowledges that vaccines are not as thoroughly studied as previously claimed, particularly in terms of safety, both before and after they are licensed. This has raised concerns among critics, who argue that for decades, the public was assured that vaccines underwent rigorous safety testing.
Key points from the article include the admission that prelicensure clinical trials often have limited sample sizes and short follow-up periods, which may not fully capture long-term safety data. Additionally, there are currently no dedicated resources for post-authorization safety studies, relying instead on annual appropriations approved by Congress. This lack of resources for ongoing safety monitoring has been criticized as inadequate, particularly given the widespread use of vaccines.
This revelation has been met with strong reactions, especially from those who have long questioned the rigor of vaccine safety studies. They argue that these acknowledgments confirm their concerns that vaccine safety has not been as thoroughly investigated as it should be.
🧠 Get the Right Info: Making Confident Prescription Decisions
Not all medical advice is created equal, and it can be tough to know if your doctor is offering the best treatment options for you. We’ll share strategies for ensuring you get the most accurate, unbiased information when making choices about prescription medications.
✔️ 3 Actionable Tips to Start Making Informed Choices Today
We’ll wrap up the episode with three practical, actionable tips to empower you to start making more informed medical decisions—whether you’re picking up a prescription or heading in for a routine check-up.
This week’s conversation is all about reclaiming control over your health decisions. Tune in for an eye-opening discussion that’ll give you the tools you need to ask better questions, challenge the status quo, and take a more active role in your medical care.
Don’t miss this powerful episode of Taste of Truth Tuesdays! 🎙️
Taste0ftruth Tuesdays 