* Wearing a bra over 12 hours daily dramatically increases breast cancer incidence.

* Bra-free women have about the same incidence of breast cancer as men.

* Those who wear a bra 18-24 hours daily have over 100 times greater incidence of breast cancer than do bra-free women. This link is 3-4 times greater than that between cigarettes and lung cancer!

(Source: Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, Medical Anthropologists)

How exactly is it that bras can cause breast cancer?

Dr. Singer and Grismaijer explain:

“Our theory explaining these findings is that the bra, an elastic garment designed to alter breast shape, applies constant pressure to the soft breast tissue, compressing and constricting lymphatic vessels. Evidence of this constriction are the red marks and indentations in the skin left behind by the bra. Since the role of the lymphatics is to flush out toxins and debris from the tissues, impairment of lymphatic flow can lead to the toxification of the breast tissue. These toxins include endogenous toxins resulting from the consequent tissue hypoxia, as well as the exogenous toxins that contaminate our food, water and air in our petrochemically polluted world. Many of these toxins are carcinogenic. The bra concentrates these in the breast by preventing the lymphatics from flushing them away.

Of course, this means that the cause of breast cancer is not the bra, per se, but the toxins that the bra concentrates in the breast tissue due to lymphatic impairment.

Interestingly, when you look at the worldwide statistics on breast cancer, it is clear that it is only a problem in cultures where bras are worn. No bras, and men and women have about the same low incidence of breast cancer. And the bra link also explains various breast cancer risk factors, as we discuss in Dressed To Kill.

While more research is clearly needed to further study this link, we believe it is prudent medicine to recommend women abstain from bra wearing as a precaution. There is no reason for wearing a bra, apart from fashion. The human body was not designed with a flaw that requires modern lingerie for correction. Like the absurd and destructive fashion of foot binding in China, women in the West bind their breasts. “

When this research first came out back in 1995, I immediately stopped wearing a bra. To be honest, I hated the things anyway and by that point was only wearing the light, stretchy cotton bras by Evita. After this research, I wore undershirts and camisoles instead.

Then as the years wore on, I started to wonder: Why am I ashamed of my nipples? Who decreed that even the outline of a nipple should never be shown?? So then I began eschewing the undershirts and just wearing a normal shirt – ahhh, the comfort and freedom of it.

I must admit, it’s easy for me to go bra-free because I have small breasts. If I had large, heavy breasts, that hung to my belly button when bra-free, I imagine it would be much more difficult. But, I would still do it, except on special occasions. Because there’s another benefit to going bra-free, as Dr. Singer and Grismaijer relate:

“Then something happened that we had not foreseen. Some courageous women who had heard our message tried going bra-free and reported their experiences to us. Within weeks, if not days, most of these women experienced a profound change in their breast health. Breast pain and tenderness virtually ended. Cysts that had needed regular aspirations disappeared. We began to realize that fibrocystic breast disease, common in bra-wearing cultures, should be called “tight bra syndrome.

It all made perfect sense, of course. The bra was causing secondary lymphedema of the breasts due to constriction of the lymphatics. The accumulated fluid caused increased tissue pressure with associated pain and tenderness, and eventually developed into cysts. While the fibrous tissue that develops in long standing cysts takes more time to resolve, relieving the pressure by eliminating the bra allowed the cysts to drain, alleviating the pressure and discomfort. (This also explained why many women have breast myalgia near the time of their menstrual period. Estrogen levels are elevated at this time, increasing overall body fluid retention and increasing breast size. However, women typically wear the same size bra all month long, making it particularly tight at these times, increasing breat pain. Once bra-free, this syndrome usually stops.)

The results are fast, impressive and transformative. It was this link with fibrocystic breast disease that helped keep our bra-cancer theory alive. While it didn’t prove the cancer connection, it did show that the bra was damaging the breasts, adding support to our claims.

We then did a follow-up study to our first US study. This time we went to Fiji, where half the population is bra-free. We approached the Health Ministry and asked for their assistance. Once we told them our theory, they exclaimed, “That explains why our working women are now getting breast cancer! They are the ones who wear bras!” Over the next few months we went from village to village and obtained over 20 case histories of breast cancer. All were in women who wore bras. We found that, given women from the same village (genetically related), with the same diet, the ones who developed breast cancer were the ones who wore bras.”

Bra-Free Woman In Fiji

Since doctors Singer and Grismaijer published their research, there have been three Japanese studies confirming their findings. Why has the Japanese medical establishment picked up on Singer/Grismaijer’s research and furthered it, while the U.S. has ignored it? Follow the money, honey.

Until recently, Japan has been largely a non-bra wearing culture. However in the U.S., the bra industry is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. And how many billions of dollars a year are spent on breast cancer research and treatment? it seems like every other month there’s some pink-ribbon run to raise funds for breast cancer in my town.

Is it hard to go bra-free? Heck yes! You don’t realize how screwed-up our culture is about breasts until you step outside the box. Take breastfeeding as one example: On the one hand you have every fashion magazine and most women walking around with their breasts pushed up, plumped out and on display as much as possible. Then you have a woman who tries to feed her child and she is barred from airplane flights, kicked out of restaurants and asked to leave stores (yes, these incidences have really happened).

So what can you do to make the transition to bra-free easier?

• Start doing push-ups (do them against the wall to start with, then move to on the ground when you’re able) to build your pectoral muscles which support your breasts. These are “nature’s bra”. Even after breastfeeding 3 children, my breasts don’t sag very much because the musculature underneath and above the breast tissue is strong (okay, and because they’re not heavy).
• Wear silk or cotton camisoles, or tank tops (undershirts) instead of a bra. Make sure they’re natural fabrics as you don’t want the xenoestrogens from synthetic fabrics leaching into your skin either.
• If you just can’t get your head round going bra-free in public, then go bra-free the second you walk in the door to your home, and only wear a bra when you go out. If this means you have to change in and out of your bra several times a day, do it.
• Switch to cotton bras (natural fabrics breathe better) for when you must wear a bra and buy them loose enough that you can easily fit two fingers between the torso strap and your ribs.
• If you think going bra-free looks slutty, then switch to thicker, looser fabrics for your shirts and dresses that drape, rather than cling. A thicker fabric will also hide your nipples (as will an undershirt/camisole). Or layer your clothes, wear a shirt with a sweater hanging loosely over top.
• Show the research to your husband, boyfriend and enlist his help and support in your endeavour.

Embrace the idea that if a woman packed into a bra who looks like this is acceptably sexy in our culture:

Then a bra-free woman who looks like this can also be sexy:

And what’s wrong with a bra-free woman who looks like this?:

We’ve all felt horror at the pictures of Chinese women who bound their feet and crippled themselves. So why are you following the same type of cultural dictum – binding your breasts, risking disease and possibly death? What’s more important?

p.s. Here’s a picture of me (bra-free as always) and can you even tell??

Update – VITAMIN D – ANOTHER MAJOR FACTOR IN BREAST CANCER:

TORONTO, Nov. 4/09 /CNW/ – Breast cancer is a disease so directly related to vitamin D deficiency that a woman’s risk of contracting the disease can be ‘virtually eradicated’ by elevating her vitamin D status to what vitamin D scientists consider to be natural blood levels.

That’s the message vitamin D pioneer Dr. Cedric Garland delivered in Toronto Tuesday as part of the University of Toronto School of Medicine’s “Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency” conference – the largest gathering of vitamin D researchers in North America this year. More than 170 researchers, public health officials and health practitioners gathered at the UT Faculty club for the landmark event.

See my blog post about vitamin D to find out what amount of vitamin D you should be supplementing each day and which preparation I recommend.

soar higher,

Jini

We had SO many great comments when I asked for your help in finalizing the title for my new book on constipation. I gotta say, you guys REALLY made me think hard, reassess and generally threw me into a real right tizzy of indecision.

In the end, I decided to stick with the branding of “Listen To Your…” so I’m keeping the title the same. However, I’ve made “Constipation” in the sub-title red – to make it jump out more – which several of you suggested.

Just to make the draw for the winner of the free softcover book a little more fun, I had 2 of my little monkeys help me. For those of you who remember the pictures of Hugo when he was born, he is now three! And my daughter Zara is six. So, watch this video to find out who won the book….

As you can see, we also drew for 2 winners of the ebook version of Listen To Your Colon.

So big thank you again to everyone who left their feedback. And remember, you can still pre-order the book at a big discount. Here’s what some readers have said about the book (I sent it out to a few already for feedback and testing):

****I did the recommended treatment for the constipation as given in the ebook and I have been going everyday since. I am very happy with the recommendations from the book and plan to do another probiotic retention enema when I get the rectum healed.
- Laurinda K.

Hey Jini, Wow, great job! I did not read through the entire work tonight, but skimmed it all and focused on the constipation, remedies for children (the adaptations) and the dietary suggestions.
Thank you, thank you. For everything. What a gift that you have made beauty out of your own journey of healing. Your transparency and desire to see others experience freedom in their health is awesome. Thanks again.
- Favian K.

Your book is very enlightening so far- I never looked at constipation that way- Actually I never really thought I was constipated- just terribly irregular!!
- Nadine P.

I had a look at your book and I really enjoyed it! No seriously, I am someone who has this problem (hope that is not too much information) and I found your suggestions helpful – really liked the holistic approach to solving these types of problems. It is obvious that you have looked at the research from all angles comprehensively – especially with identifying the different types of constipation – which I did not know there was so many – and explaining how to treat them. I agree with you completely that most ailments can be healed naturally and use of the pharmacutical is ridiculous. Medical doctors do not always have the best treatment options. In fact, I beginning to wonder if some of them know anything at all! I am looking forward to trying some your suggestions – will keep you posted! I am sure there are many other people out there who will be grateful for this information.
- Jane S.

P.S. If you are one of the contest winners and you haven’t received an email from me – check your junk/spam folder. If you still can’t find it, then email me at: service @ HolisticHealthShoppe.com

I’ve written about the safety of raw milk before in my Infoletter – Good Health Is Real Wealth, however, this issue came up again when I received an email from reader who read a blog post about Organic Pastures Dairy being sued over an E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak in 2006. The blog post was written by William D. Marler, the lawyer who brought the litigation against Organic Pastures.

Since I had never heard of this particular lawsuit, I started doing some research. I got in contact with Bill Marler himself, Sally Fallon (head of the Weston A. Price Organization and realmilk.com) and the CEO of Organic Pastures Dairy – Mark McAfee. What emerged was probably a representational picture of the raw milk issue in North America.

On the one side of debate, we have raw milk supporters (of which I’m one) saying that raw milk is a healthy superfood and the risk of infection, although present, is much lower than that of pasteurized milk. Indeed, there have been far more E. coli 0157:H7 outbreaks from pasteurized dairy products, than raw dairy.

On the other side of the issue, we have some powerful players who are resolutely opposed to the legalization of raw milk and who use the FDA and other regulatory bodies to harass and raid small raw milk farmers – sometimes with FBI officers with machine guns (believe it or not!) storming their farms. Why?

I suspect it has to do with money. If the mass public started demanding raw milk, the current large factory-farm dairy suppliers would be in a real fix. How could they possibly get their diseased, antibiotic-laced, hormone-enhanced cows to produce healthy milk? They would lose a LOT of money and many would simply go bankrupt. These are pretty strong motivators to maintain the status quo.

In addition, as raw milk gains acceptance and usage increases, who is losing customers? Who is making less money? Again, it’s the large agribusiness dairy corporation.

Then we have Bill Marler (officially, William D. Marler) – a lawyer who specializes in foodborne illness litigation, who is blogging and publishing rather avidly against raw milk. What are his motivators? Is he an FDA-pawn (as some have accused), or is he primarily motivated by the desire to make money from a contentious issue? Or, has he been very negatively affected by his raw milk litigation cases, feeling that someone has to trumpet the dangers?

I had a lot of emails back and forth with Bill, with him sending me documents from the local State and CDC investigations of the Organic Pastures incident in 2006. But I don’t want to get into debating all that here – for one side of the argument, you can go to Bill Marler’s site and download the documents yourself. For the other side of the argument, go to www.realmilk.com (Sally Fallon’s site) and scroll down the homepage – there you can download their rebuttal for each of Marler’s assertions.

For those of you that want the short-version summary of the case: Bill Marler says he built a really strong case against Organic Pastures (OP) and the grocery stores that sold the milk, using data from the State of California investigation and the CDC. He says they sat down with OP, the grocery stores and all the insurance companies and a settlement was reached, so the case never went to court. He is legally prohibited from giving details of the settlement.

Mark McAfee (Organic Pasture’s founder and CEO) says that yes, they all sat down together, however OP refused to settle and their evidence was strong enough that they were happy to go to court. But, the insurance companies didn’t want to go to court and insisted on a settlement instead. The upside was that OP’s insurance company renewed their policy for the next year at a lower rate. Also the State of California presented OP with a letter of retraction and a cheque to cover their expenses. As I said, you can look at the original documents from both sides and draw your own conclusions – I think it’s pretty clear.

But, I’m interested in going beyond all that and telling you what transpired in my phone conversation with Bill Marler. First of all, he is a surprising man to talk to, because I expected to get a lot of lawyerly “I can’t comment on that” statements. Instead, I found a fairly laid-back, open person who was genuinely interested in discussion.

For someone so publicly anti-raw milk, Marler told me that he’s actually quite conflicted about raw milk, since he grew up drinking raw milk on his family’s farm (where his father still lives and now farms bees).

He said there’s no point in banning raw milk – Prohibition didn’t work, and neither would prohibiting raw milk. What he says he’s after is a balanced portrayal of the risks involved with raw milk consumption and other foods he considers risky: like factory farmed meat and agribusiness produce.

His fear is that as raw milk becomes a profitable commodity (i.e. large-scale farming), the likelihood of an outbreak increases. So then I asked him, “Okay, in light of what you’ve seen and experienced, what would you do regarding raw milk – what measures would you put in place?”

Marler said he would like to see raw milk throughout the country follow the Washington state model – with small farmers selling directly to consumers. He would also like to see pathogen-testing at various points along the line, not just of the packaged milk.

He said this is important because it tells you about your milking process and you would be able to pinpoint how and where exactly something is going wrong. For example, it may not be the cow that is the problem, it might be your collection tank, or a certain part of a certain machine, for example.

Marler maintains that he is a big supporter of Michael Pollan – recently footing the bill personally for Pollan to speak at an upcoming symposium at Washington State University. Marler emphasized repeatedly that he is in favour of sustainable farming and eating locally.

So, either Bill Marler is hosing me, presenting himself entirely as someone he’s not. Or, the raw milk-advocate camp and the raw milk-litigation camp are closer on this issue than we imagine.

I mean really, don’t we all want the same things?

• None of us want pathogens (disease-causing microorganisms) in the milk
• We all want to drink milk only from cows that are really healthy
• We all agree that factory farming, big agribusiness and flying food around the world are not healthy, sustainable practices
• We all want to do everything we can to prevent outbreaks of foodborne illnesses
• None of us are claiming that raw milk is never infected with pathogens, we are saying that the risk is minimal; compared to the health benefits, and compared to pasteurized milk

I guess the big questions remaining are:

1. Why just focus on raw milk? In spite of pasteurization, pasteurized milk has caused far more foodborne illness than raw milk. In addition, about 2% of pasteurized milk is infected with Mycobacterium Avium Paratuberculosis (MAP) – a bacterial/fungal hybrid thought to be one of the causes of Crohn’s Disease, since it’s DNA has been found in 92-100% of people with Crohn’s (incidence varies across studies). Pasteurization does not kill MAP, not even ultra-high temperature (UHT) pasteurization can kill it.

2. If we want to keep raw milk pathogen-free, is the solution really more testing and sterilization, or would we be better served by looking at the overall microbial environment? After all, bacteria follow the rule of “competitive exclusion”, i.e. if there are enough good bacteria present, the bad bacteria go away. Perhaps we could all work together to educate each other and ascertain which really are the best procedures for keeping raw milk (and pasteurized milk) pathogen-free.

3. Perhaps we could also collaborate on healthy farming practices and milk-to-consumer channels. None of us wants to see raw milk being factory farmed.

I wonder if Mark McAfee and Sally Fallon are surprised at what came out of my conversation with Bill Marler? Perhaps they feel that actions speak louder than words and his actions to date are adversarial. Perhaps they are wondering if Bill is shifting a little in his stance, and is ready to explore a more collaborative position…

Personally, I buy my raw milk from a small dairy farm in Washington State (the milk is available in a few local stores), where the cows are out on the pasture, in fresh air, and the farmer tests for pathogens in excess of State regulations. So I agree with Marler, it’s a good system.

I’d like to know what Sally Fallon and Mark McAfee think of all this…..

soar higher,
Jini

In preparation for my teleseminar with raw milk therapy expert, Jim Ehmke, CN, I went on a one week raw milk diet myself!

Watch the videos below – shot on Day 1, Day 4 and at the conclusion of the Diet, to find out how it went, what I learned and whether I would ever do this again!

If you’d like a copy of the fantastic Raw Milk Diet Therapy teleseminar with Jim Ehmke, CN, then you can get both the written transcript and audio recording (MP3) in the next 2 weeks, for only $1 by trying out Gold membership in my new JPT Wellness Circle – which entitles you to this and every other teleseminar I’ve ever done, plus podcasts, videos, case studies, free ebooks, etc. (you can cancel at anytime).

Jini’s Raw Milk Diet – Day 1

Jini’s Raw Milk Diet – Day 4

Jini’s Raw Milk Diet – Finished!

Recently, I received yet another sample of a probiotic to try. According to the label, it contained “Lactobacillus sporogenes- a shelf-stable, vegan probiotic that does not require refrigeration.” But here’s the problem: There is actually no such species as Lactobacillus sporogenes. Which then leads us to question of what exactly is in all these probiotic products?

It’s important to keep in mind that Lactobacillus refers to bacteria that are capable of producing lactic acid. Hence, these bacteria are traditionally cultured in milk. Supplements containing Bacillus bacteria are NOT cultured in milk and they are derived from the soil.

Lactobacilllus bacteria do not form spores and they do not remain permanently in your gut – this is why you have to keep consuming yoghurt, kefir, etc. daily. But soil bacteria ALL form spores and these spores remain in your gut and cannot be eradicated by any means identified to date. For a full outline of the possible dangers of consuming bacterial soil organisms, see my blog post about soil organisms.

Following is an excellent summation of this issue from the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) that explains exactly what is happening and why probiotics claiming to contain Lactobacillus sporogenes may actually contain a bacterial soil organism called Bacillus coagulans, or possibly Bacillus subtilis – but really, who knows?

Personally, I strongly suspect that the companies putting out these products are operating out of ignorance. And based on my personal experience with probiotic manufacturers – most of whom are just middle-man wholesalers – I suspect that they too are ignorant of the facts. As I talked about in my Probiotics 1 Teleseminar, misinformation in the field of probiotics is vast.

Here is the article from ASM so you can be properly informed on this issue:

“Lactobacillus sporogenes” Is Not a Lactobacillus Probiotic

Microbes have proven their value in a plethora of industrial settings, including their use as probiotics, or healthpromoting microbes. Within the probiotic industry, there are those who disregard the conventions of bacterial nomenclature. Perhaps the best example of this is the use of the name “Lactobacillus sporogenes” on probiotic labels, instead of the proper nomenclature, which assigns this bacterium to the genus Bacillus (Bergey’s Manual, 1974). List of Bacterial Names with Standing in Nomenclature.

The name “Lactobacillus sporogenes” appeared in the scientific literature in 1932 (L. M. HorowitzWlassowa and N. W. Nowotelnow, Cent. F. Bak., II Abt., 87:331, 1932). However, this name was never recognized by the scientific community, and was described as a misclassification in Bergey’s Manual in 1939. The bacterium described by HorowitzWlassowa and Nowotelnow was a sporeforming bacterium, and as such could not be included as a species of Lactobacillus, which are nonsporeforming rods. This assertion was confirmed in the 5th, 6th, and 8th editions of Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. The 4th and 7th editions do not mention the name “Lactobacillus sporogenes,” nor does the Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology (1986). The name is not listed on the official bacterial nomenclature list, the List of Bacterial Names with Standing in Nomenclature.

Clearly, the name “Lactobacillus sporogenes” has no scientific validity. Although there is no official classification of bacteria, the names given to bacteria are regulated through the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Bacteriological Code). However, this name still appears on the labels of probiotic supplements worldwide and in a few publications of Asian journals. The implications of the persistence of this mislabeling should be considered. The most important of these is safety. Since “Lactobacillus sporogenes” is not recognized as a species, a product labeled with this name confirms nothing about its contents. It may be a Bacillus coagulans, as marketing literature from at least one company claims (Sabinsa Corp., Piscataway, N.J.), but is it prudent to make this presumption, especially with products making no assertion of correct nomenclature? If the identity of the bacterium is in question, no conclusions about its safety can be made.

Although B. coagulans is not considered pathogenic, neither is it an organism normally associated with food production (although Bacillus subtilis is used in the production of “natto,” a Japanese food), a status enjoyed by many members of the genus Lactobacillus. Presumably the products on the market are consumed without undue risk. However, no independent panel of experts has evaluated the safety of B. coagulans for human consumption as has been done for the lactobacilli. Erroneously calling this organism a lactobacillus incorrectly associates it with the same safety record as lactobacilli.

Another implication of mislabeling is related to probiotic product efficacy. Unlike probiotic species of lactobacilli, members of the genus Bacillus are not considered normal members of the intestinal flora and do persist in the mammalian gastrointestinal tract. Published literature supporting the role of Bacillus coagulans in enhancing human health is sparse, especially as compared to literature published on Lactobacillus use as probiotics. To continue to persist using this taxonomically incorrect name leads to speculation about the advantages of willingly mislabeling a product. It is likely that companies hope to benefit from association with the large aggregate of published literature and history of use on the safety and health benefits of the genus Lactobacillus. This “halo effect” would disappear if products were labeled as containing Bacillus instead of Lactobacillus.

Furthermore, a marketing advantage can be achieved by using shelfstable Bacillus spores instead of more labile Lactobacillus. The perpetuation of intentional mislabeling in the long run will serve to erode consumer confidence and undermine the credibility of the probiotic industry. Furthermore, the implications of mislabeling may have negative regulatory implications for the entire probiotic category. The FDA convened an information-gathering meeting in September 2000 on probiotics, suggesting we can expect closer regulatory scrutiny of this product category in the future (Clemens, R., Food Technol. 55:27, 2001). The industry should act to correct the issue of mislabeling before the FDA or consumer watchdog groups do it first.

- Mary Ellen Sanders Dairy and Food Culture Technologies Littleton, Colo. mesanders@msn.com
- Lorenzo Morelli Instituto di Microbiologia UCSC Piacenza, Italy
- Scott Bush Rhodia Inc. Madison, Wis.

I once tried sending this information to one of the largest retailers selling a probiotic product labelled “Lactobacillus sporogenes”. Surprise, surprise, I never heard back from them, and they didn’t change their labelling or marketing materials. So once again, the burden of knowledge falls on the consumer. Until we have a sincere, functional regulatory body for supplements (i.e. not the FDA et al) these kinds of potentially-dangerous situations will continue to occur.

POSSIBLE NEW BOOK COVER

Well, I’m just finishing up the layout and design of my new book on natural healing for CONSTIPATION.

Originally, this was supposed to be a short, 40-50 page guide. However, in order to do a GOOD job with the topic and provide enough information and protocols so that the highest number of people would achieve success…. well, it’s now a 140 page book.

The ironic thing is that after 20 years of loose stools (I purposely kept them loose as my rectal sphincter would not open wider than a pencil), I experienced constipation for the first time about 2 years ago. My gut was basically so healthy that nothing I could do would produce loose stools!

You try getting a rectum that has passed nothing but watery mush for 20 years to try and pass large, formed stool… not nice. Those of you who were on the teleseminar with me and Dr. Gabor Mate know all about this problem!

But anyway, the bottom line is that, once again, having to actually heal constipation in my own body has produced in-depth, practical, highly effective tools for dealing with and healing this condition.

Just like in Listen To Your Gut, I present both short-term remedies (cause when ya gotta go, ya really need to go soon!) and long-term solutions that heal the underlying, root causes of constipation.

From my own experience and working with numerous readers, I have also ascertained that there are actually TWO different kinds of constipation. I have called these Peristaltic Constipation and Stenosis Constipation. And the treatments and protocols are different depending on which one you suffer from.

So now that you know what the book is about – I need your help in selecting a title for the book!

The one I’m thinking of is:

LISTEN TO YOUR COLON: The Complete Natural Healing Guide For Constipation

Please let me know what you think of this title, or if you have a title you think would be better – write your thoughts in the COMMENTS section just below.

If you want more information on what exactly is in the book, click here for details on the book content. You can see I’m using Listen To Your Colon as the working title, but we haven’t gone to print yet, so I’m open to suggestions…

You can also pre-purchase the book at a large discount – the pre-pub special – if you like.

But, everyone who leaves a comment below will be entered in a draw to win a free copy of this book once it’s printed. I will announce the winner in one week’s time.

p.s. If you pre-purchase the book and then win the free copy, of course I’ll refund your money : )
Just type your thoughts about the title in the LEAVE A REPLY box below.

thanks for your help,
Jini

p.s. also, let me know what you think of the book cover design…..